Sincerity to Show Up for Community: South Korean Repertoires of Resistance in the Candlelight Revolution and the 2024 Impeachment Crisis

Sincerity to Show Up for Community: South Korean Repertoires of Resistance in the Candlelight Revolution and the 2024 Impeachment Crisis

Abstract

This paper explores the deeply rooted cultural, historical, and social dynamics that underpin South Korea's unique forms of civic resistance. From the Candlelight Revolution of 2016-17 to the impeachment of President Yoon in 2024, it examines how ordinary citizens navigate and respond to democratic crises with business-like determination and fearless solidarity. Drawing on Charles Tilly's concept of repertoires of contention and Victor Turner's theory of liminality, this study analyzes how democratic participation has become embedded in South Korean identity, transcending barriers of gender, class, and age. The paper also reflects on the positionality of foreign residents witnessing and interpreting these events, highlighting both admiration and the precariousness of being an outsider in South Korea's democratic sphere. Through qualitative analysis of personal narratives, public discourse, and secondary sources, this research demonstrates how South Korea's resistance movements reveal democracy as a shared, lived practice rather than merely a political system.

Introduction

On December 3, 2024, South Korea once again found itself at a critical juncture in its democratic journey. President Yoon Suk-yeol's declaration of martial law—the first since 1980—and the subsequent mass mobilization that led to his impeachment within hours exemplified a remarkable pattern of civic resistance that has characterized South Korean democracy for decades. This moment was not an anomaly but rather the latest expression of what Tilly (2010) terms "repertoires of contention"—established and innovative methods through which citizens assert their democratic rights and challenge authoritarian overreach.

The 2024 impeachment crisis occurred within a broader historical trajectory that includes the Candlelight Revolution of 2016-17, when millions of South Koreans took to the streets demanding the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye. What distinguishes South Korean civic resistance is not merely its scale or success, but the normalized, routine manner in which democratic participation has been woven into the fabric of everyday life. As one workshop organizer's message exemplified: "I'm sorry I can't attend the workshop. For the future of our country, I have to participate in the impeachment rally today." This matter-of-fact approach to democratic engagement—treating protest attendance with the same seriousness as a business obligation—reveals a society where civic duty has become inseparable from personal identity.

This paper examines South Korea's unique repertoires of resistance through a dual lens: the perspective of Koreans themselves, for whom these mobilizations represent a continuation of hard-won democratic struggles, and the positionality of foreigners who observe and occasionally participate in these movements while remaining acutely aware of their outsider status. The tension between admiration for South Korea's democratic resilience and the precarity of foreign engagement emerged pointedly when Dr. Shin cautioned: "Maria, please be cautious. You are fortunate that you are not being expelled, as the impeachment has taken effect." This warning underscores the complex dynamics of belonging, citizenship, and the boundaries of political participation in contemporary South Korea.

By analyzing these two recent democratic crises, this paper seeks to understand what makes South Korean resistance unique in the global context, how moments of political crisis redefine citizenship for both Koreans and foreign residents, and how South Korea balances vulnerability and resilience in its ongoing democratic experiment.

Literature Review

Theoretical Frameworks

The concept of "repertoires of contention" developed by Charles Tilly (2010) provides a foundational framework for understanding how social movements employ both inherited and innovative forms of collective action. Tilly argues that contentious performances are not random but follow recognizable patterns shaped by historical precedent, cultural context, and available resources. As Alimi (2015) elaborates, repertoires include the full range of means by which political actors make claims on each other, from petitions and demonstrations to strikes and occupations. These repertoires are learned, transmitted across generations, and adapted to new political circumstances.

Building on Tilly's framework, scholars have expanded the concept to examine how resistance operates across different scales and contexts. Johansson and Vinthagen (2016) identify dimensions of everyday resistance that extend beyond spectacular moments of protest to include subtle, mundane acts of non-cooperation and alternative practice. Córtez and Gutiérrez (2019) introduce the concept of "socio-spatial repertoires," emphasizing how physical and social spaces become tools for resistance and the expansion of democratic participation. This spatial dimension is particularly relevant to understanding South Korea's candlelight vigils, which transform urban squares into arenas of democratic deliberation.

Victor Turner's concept of liminality offers another crucial lens for analyzing South Korea's resistance movements. Turner describes liminal periods as threshold moments when normal social structures and hierarchies temporarily dissolve, creating spaces for communitas—intense feelings of solidarity and equality among participants. Kern (2009) applies this framework to analyze cultural performances during political regime change, arguing that ritualized protests can generate transformative social experiences that reshape political consciousness. The candlelight vigils in South Korea exemplify such liminal moments, where hierarchies of age, class, and gender temporarily recede as citizens gather as equals in defense of democracy.

Historical Precedents in South Korean Resistance

South Korea's contemporary repertoires of resistance are rooted in a long history of struggle against authoritarianism and foreign domination. Shin (2015) traces Korean resistance networks from 1895 to 1945, documenting how opposition to Japanese colonial rule created enduring patterns of clandestine organization, symbolic communication, and collective mobilization. Abelmann (1996) examines the "echoes of the past" that reverberate through modern South Korean social movements, arguing that current activism draws explicitly on historical memories of resistance to create "epics of dissent."

The Gwangju Uprising of 1980 stands as a pivotal moment in this genealogy of resistance. The brutal suppression of democratic protesters by military forces created a traumatic rupture in South Korean society, but also generated what Kang (2012) calls "corporeal memory"—embodied knowledge of violence and resistance that is transmitted through commemorative practices and shapes subsequent mobilizations. This historical consciousness informs the fearlessness with which contemporary South Koreans confront authoritarian threats, as citizens understand themselves as inheritors of a hard-won democratic tradition.

Shin (2018) analyzes urban movements in Seoul to trace the genealogy of urban rights discourses, showing how struggles against redevelopment and displacement have contributed to broader understandings of citizenship and belonging. Choi (2021) examines how social media platforms have transformed the politics of reciprocity in South Korean energy activism, enabling new forms of recognition and solidarity that extend traditional repertoires into digital spaces. Meanwhile, Um (2013) explores how Korean hip-hop serves as a medium for resistance and "cultural reterritorialisation," demonstrating how repertoires encompass cultural as well as political expression.

The labor movement has also played a crucial role in developing South Korean resistance repertoires. Chun (2022) documents how precarious workers have engaged in what she calls "the labor of refusal," using strikes, occupations, and creative protests to challenge neoliberal restructuring. Porteux and Kim (2023) examine the persistence of labor repression even within South Korea's democracy, showing how workers continue to face violence while simultaneously expanding their repertoires of resistance.

The Candlelight Tradition

The candlelight vigil has emerged as a distinctively Korean form of protest, combining elements of ritual, carnival, and political demonstration. Hwang and Willis (2020) provide a comparative analysis of candlelight vigils in South Korea, identifying several distinctive features: their peaceful nature, their inclusion of families and children, their festival-like atmosphere, and their emphasis on civic education and deliberation rather than merely expressing anger. Kang (2012) argues that the 2002 candlelight vigils marked the emergence of a "post-ideological" social movement, characterized less by partisan affiliations than by a shared commitment to democratic values and national dignity.

Ahn (2024) examines how candlelight vigils have mattered in post-democratic South Korea through three key mechanisms: routinization, emotional dynamics, and organizational practices. Routinization refers to how regular participation in protests has become normalized as a form of democratic citizenship. Emotional dynamics encompass the feelings of solidarity, hope, and collective efficacy generated through shared participation. Organizational practices include the decentralized coordination, creative tactics, and inclusive culture that characterize candlelight protests.

Choi (2019) analyzes how elderly women—the "protesting grandmothers"—have become central figures in South Korean resistance, representing spatial resistance in the neo-developmental era. These older women occupy public spaces for extended periods, transforming them into sites of political contestation while drawing on their social position as respected elders to legitimize protest activities. Their presence challenges stereotypes about who participates in resistance and exemplifies the cross-generational nature of South Korean democratic movements.

The Candlelight Revolution and Everyday Democracy

The Candlelight Revolution of 2016-17 represented a watershed moment in South Korean democracy, demonstrating the maturation of civic resistance repertoires developed over decades. Between October 2016 and March 2017, millions of South Koreans participated in weekly candlelight vigils demanding the impeachment and removal of President Park Geun-hye, who was accused of corruption and allowing a close confidante to exert improper influence over government affairs. The protests were remarkable not only for their scale—organizers estimated that 17 million people participated over the course of the movement—but for their peaceful, orderly, and almost festive character.

What made the Candlelight Revolution distinctive was its normalization of democratic participation as a routine civic duty. Citizens treated protest attendance with the same seriousness and planning as any other important obligation. The message "I'm sorry I can't attend the workshop. For the future of our country, I have to participate in the impeachment rally today" encapsulates this approach. The speaker expresses regret at missing the workshop, but frames protest participation not as an optional political act but as a necessary responsibility—something one "has to" do. The phrasing suggests a business-like determination: democratic participation is not merely a right but a duty that takes precedence over other commitments.

This attitude reflects what Ahn (2024) identifies as the "routinization" of protest in contemporary South Korea. Unlike societies where mass mobilization is exceptional and disruptive, South Koreans have integrated protest into the rhythms of ordinary life. Families attended vigils together, bringing children and grandparents. The protests featured performances, food vendors, and creative displays. Citizens formed orderly lines, separated trash for recycling, and coordinated to ensure everyone could see and participate. This organizational sophistication demonstrated what Johansson and Vinthagen (2016) call the "dimensions of everyday resistance"—the ways in which oppositional practices become embedded in daily routines rather than remaining exceptional events.

The Candlelight Revolution also exemplified the breakdown of traditional social hierarchies during moments of resistance. Korean society is often characterized by rigid age, gender, and class distinctions, reflected in linguistic forms, social protocols, and organizational structures. Yet the candlelight vigils created what Turner describes as liminal spaces where these hierarchies temporarily dissolved. Students and retirees, workers and executives, women and men, all gathered as equal citizens united by a common purpose. Choi (2019) notes that the prominent role of elderly women in the protests—the "protesting grandmothers"—challenged both age and gender hierarchies, as older women typically occupy subordinate positions in both labor markets and family structures.

The protests also demonstrated sophisticated uses of digital and physical space to coordinate action and express solidarity. Córtez and Gutiérrez's (2019) concept of "socio-spatial repertoires" illuminates how protesters transformed Gwanghwamun Square and other urban centers into what Kern (2009) calls "sites of cultural performance." The candlelight itself became a powerful symbol—individual flames representing individual citizens, collectively producing a sea of light that signified unified opposition to corruption. Social media platforms enabled decentralized coordination, rapid information sharing, and the documentation of protests, while physical presence in public squares created the emotional intensity and sense of solidarity that Ahn (2024) identifies as crucial to sustaining mobilization.

The success of the Candlelight Revolution—resulting in Park's impeachment, removal, and eventual imprisonment—reinforced South Koreans' confidence in their capacity for effective democratic resistance. The movement demonstrated that sustained, peaceful mass mobilization could hold even the most powerful accountable. This lesson would prove crucial when South Korea faced another democratic crisis in 2024.

The 2024 Impeachment: Continuity and Change

On the evening of December 3, 2024, President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law, claiming the need to "eradicate pro-North Korean forces and protect the constitutional order." The announcement, made via a late-night televised address, sent shockwaves through South Korean society. For the first time since 1980, when military dictator Chun Doo-hwan had used martial law to consolidate power following the assassination of Park Chung-hee, South Korea faced a direct assault on its democratic institutions by the executive branch.

The initial response combined confusion, fear, and disbelief. Citizens and lawmakers alike struggled to comprehend what was happening. Was this a genuine security threat or a power grab? As military forces moved toward the National Assembly and restrictions on political activity were announced, the gravity of the situation became clear: this was an attempted authoritarian reversal, a rejection of the democratic principles that millions had fought to establish and defend.

Yet the confusion quickly gave way to mobilization. Drawing on the repertoires of resistance established during the Candlelight Revolution and earlier struggles, citizens began gathering in public spaces even as martial law was in effect. Lawmakers rushed to the National Assembly, some climbing over walls and fences to enter the building as military forces attempted to block access. Inside, 190 members of parliament unanimously voted to nullify the martial law declaration, invoking constitutional provisions that require the president to comply with such a vote.

What followed demonstrated the power of South Korea's democratic resistance repertoires. Within hours, not days or weeks, the attempted authoritarian reversal had failed. President Yoon was forced to rescind the martial law declaration, and impeachment proceedings began immediately. The speed of this response reflected both institutional resilience—lawmakers who knew their constitutional authority and were prepared to exercise it—and popular mobilization that made clear any authoritarian turn would face massive resistance.

The parallels to the Candlelight Revolution were striking. Once again, citizens demonstrated their willingness to defend democracy through direct action. Once again, the response was characterized by both determination and organization. The "business-like" approach to democratic participation evident in the workshop message reappeared as citizens canceled plans, left work, and took to the streets. The message conveyed urgency but also resolve: defending democracy was not optional but necessary, a responsibility that trumped other commitments.

Students expressed a range of responses that reflected both fear and resilience. Some described initial panic, particularly among those who remembered learning about the 1980 martial law and the Gwangju Uprising. Others expressed anger at what they saw as a betrayal of democratic principles. Many articulated a determination to resist, viewing the crisis as a test of their generation's commitment to democracy. These responses revealed how historical consciousness shapes contemporary resistance—knowledge of past struggles provides both warnings about authoritarian violence and inspiration for effective resistance.

The 2024 crisis also differed from the Candlelight Revolution in important ways. While the 2016-17 protests developed over months, allowing for sustained mobilization and deliberation, the 2024 response required immediate action. The threat was more acute—martial law represented a direct suspension of democratic processes rather than corruption within those processes. The speed required to respond created both opportunities and vulnerabilities, as citizens and institutions had to act decisively without the luxury of extensive coordination.

Moreover, the 2024 crisis emerged in a context of heightened political polarization. While President Park had faced near-universal condemnation by the end of the Candlelight Revolution, President Yoon retained some base of support, particularly among conservative voters who viewed him as a necessary check on progressive forces. This polarization raised questions about whether South Korea could achieve the broad consensus that had characterized earlier resistance movements, or whether the country was fracturing along partisan lines that might make collective action more difficult.

Nevertheless, the swift mobilization against martial law suggested that certain democratic principles transcended partisan divisions. Even many conservatives recognized that martial law was an unacceptable overstep, a violation of democratic norms that threatened everyone regardless of political affiliation. The unanimous vote in the National Assembly, which included members of Yoon's own party, demonstrated that institutional actors could still unite in defense of democracy when faced with clear authoritarian threats.

The Foreigner's Lens: Engagement and Precarity

For foreign residents in South Korea, the 2024 impeachment crisis revealed the complex dynamics of belonging, participation, and exclusion that shape non-citizen experiences in democratic movements. Many foreigners, particularly those who had lived in South Korea for years and developed deep connections to the country, felt invested in the outcome of the crisis. They watched anxiously as events unfolded, discussed implications with Korean colleagues and friends, and in some cases considered whether to attend protests themselves.

The Facebook exchange with Dr. Shin illuminated the precarity of foreign engagement with South Korean politics. The comment—"Maria, please be cautious. You are fortunate that you are not being expelled, as the impeachment has taken effect"—carried multiple layers of meaning. On one level, it expressed genuine concern for a colleague's safety and legal status. The warning suggested that foreign commentary on or participation in Korean politics could have serious consequences, potentially including expulsion from the country. The phrase "you are fortunate" implied that others might not be so lucky, that speaking out during politically volatile moments carried real risks for non-citizens.

This caution highlights fundamental questions about the boundaries of political participation in democratic societies. Who has the right to participate in resistance movements? What forms of participation are legitimate for non-citizens? How do foreign residents navigate the tension between caring about their host country's democracy and respecting their position as outsiders?

These questions become particularly acute in South Korea, where citizenship is primarily determined by blood descent (jus sanguinis) rather than birthplace or residence. Despite decades of increasing international migration, South Korea remains culturally homogeneous compared to traditional immigrant-receiving nations, and national identity is strongly linked to Korean ethnicity. Foreign residents, regardless of how long they have lived in the country or how deeply they have integrated into Korean society, remain fundamentally "others" in ways that can become salient during moments of political crisis.

The precarity of foreign engagement extends beyond legal vulnerability to questions of legitimacy and voice. As one LinkedIn post by Rashid noted, there are ethical considerations around foreign commentary on Korean democracy. When foreigners express opinions about Korean politics, particularly criticism of Korean leaders or policies, they risk accusations of neo-colonial interference or cultural insensitivity. The history of foreign intervention in Korean affairs—from Japanese colonization to U.S. military presence and influence—makes Koreans understandably sensitive to outsider opinions about how they should govern themselves.

Yet complete silence is also problematic. Foreign residents are affected by political events in their host countries. They pay taxes, follow laws, and build lives that are shaped by government policies and political stability. Moreover, many foreigners develop genuine affection for South Korea and concern for its democratic health. To remain entirely silent during democratic crises can feel like indifference or privilege—the luxury of being able to withdraw from politics that deeply affects Korean friends, colleagues, and communities.

This tension reveals the limitations of formal citizenship categories in an era of increasing transnational mobility. Formal citizenship determines legal rights and obligations, but it does not fully capture the complex ways people belong to and care about places. Foreign residents occupy what might be called a "liminal citizenship"—partially inside and partially outside the political community, affected by political events but constrained in their ability to participate in political processes.

Some foreign residents in South Korea attempted to navigate this liminal position by offering solidarity without claiming authority. They attended protests as observers or supporters rather than organizers, they shared information on social media while being careful to center Korean voices, and they expressed concern without prescribing solutions. These careful negotiations reflect what Gade (2020) identifies as the relationship between social isolation and repertoires of resistance—outsiders must develop distinctive ways of expressing opposition that acknowledge their marginal position within the community.

The foreigner's experience also offers a distinctive perspective on South Korean democracy. Outsiders can perceive aspects of Korean political culture that might seem natural to those raised within it. The "business-like" approach to democratic participation, the seamless integration of protest into everyday life, the fearlessness in confronting authority—these qualities that Koreans might take for granted can appear remarkable to foreigners from countries where democratic participation is more sporadic or where citizens feel more alienated from political processes.

At the same time, foreign admiration for South Korean democracy must be tempered by recognition of the costs and contradictions that might be less visible to outsiders. The democratic resilience that foreigners admire was built through tremendous sacrifice, including the deaths of protesters in Gwangju and other struggles. The apparent ease with which Koreans mobilize for democracy reflects not innate cultural characteristics but learned behaviors developed through repeated crises. And South Korean democracy, like all democracies, remains imperfect and contested, marked by persistent inequalities, labor repression, and exclusions that belie narratives of universal democratic participation.

The warning from Dr. Shin thus serves as a reminder of the boundaries that structure participation in democratic movements. Foreign residents can observe, learn from, and support South Korean democracy, but they cannot fully participate as equals. Their admiration must be informed by humility about their outsider status and recognition of the limits of their understanding. And their engagement must navigate the precarity of their position—the reality that their right to remain in South Korea is provisional and could be revoked if they are perceived as overstepping appropriate boundaries.

Discussion

What Makes South Korean Democratic Resistance Unique?

Several features distinguish South Korean repertoires of resistance in the global context. First is the routinization of democratic participation that Ahn (2024) identifies. While mass protests occur in many countries, South Korea has integrated such mobilizations into the ordinary rhythms of civic life in distinctive ways. Citizens approach protest participation with the same matter-of-fact determination they apply to work obligations or family responsibilities. This normalization reflects a collective understanding that democracy is not something to be taken for granted but something that requires active, ongoing maintenance.

Second is the peaceful, orderly, and even festive character of South Korean protests. The candlelight vigils that have become a signature form of Korean resistance combine elements of demonstration, carnival, and civic education. They are designed to be accessible to all—families with children, elderly citizens, people with disabilities—rather than reserved for those willing to engage in confrontational tactics or risk arrest. This inclusivity expands the potential base of participation while also reinforcing the legitimacy of protests as expressions of popular will rather than actions of radical minorities.

Third is the speed and decisiveness with which South Koreans can mobilize in response to democratic threats. The 2024 impeachment demonstrated that when faced with clear authoritarian overreach, citizens and institutions can act with remarkable unity and efficiency. This capacity reflects both institutional design—constitutional provisions that empower the National Assembly to check executive power—and cultural repertoires that provide shared understandings of how to respond to crises.

Fourth is the historical consciousness that informs contemporary resistance. As Kang (2012) argues, South Korean protesters draw explicitly on "corporeal memory" of past struggles, understanding themselves as inheritors of a tradition of resistance that extends back through the Gwangju Uprising, the democratization movement of the 1980s, and earlier struggles against authoritarianism and colonialism. This historical awareness provides both inspiration and instruction, as citizens learn from past successes and failures.

Finally, there is the paradoxical combination of fearlessness and sophistication that characterizes South Korean resistance. Citizens are willing to confront power directly, to fill streets in defiance of authority, and to risk personal consequences in defense of democracy. Yet this fearlessness is channeled through sophisticated organizational practices, careful attention to messaging and symbolism, and strategic use of legal and institutional channels. South Korean protesters are not naive or reckless; they are strategic actors who understand how to leverage different forms of power to achieve their goals.

Redefining Citizenship in Moments of Crisis

The 2024 impeachment crisis, like the Candlelight Revolution before it, revealed how moments of democratic crisis redefine citizenship for both Koreans and foreign residents. For Koreans, participation in resistance movements becomes a way of enacting citizenship, of demonstrating membership in the political community through action rather than merely through legal status. The workshop message—"For the future of our country, I have to participate in the impeachment rally today"—expresses this active conception of citizenship. Belonging is not passive but performative, demonstrated through willingness to show up, to be counted, to take on the responsibilities of democratic participation.

This active citizenship transcends traditional barriers of age, gender, and class. During moments of crisis, the liminal spaces of protest create what Turner describes as communitas—a sense of equality and solidarity among participants that temporarily overrides ordinary social hierarchies. The presence of the "protesting grandmothers" alongside students, workers alongside executives, creates a lived experience of democratic equality that challenges the hierarchical structures that characterize much of Korean social life.

For foreign residents, democratic crises reveal the limitations of their quasi-citizenship status. They are affected by political events but constrained in their ability to participate in political processes. They care about outcomes but must navigate accusations of illegitimate interference. Their experience illuminates what Córtez and Gutiérrez (2019) call "socio-spatial repertoires"—the ways in which physical presence, social position, and cultural resources combine to enable or constrain participation in collective action.

The warning that "you are fortunate that you are not being expelled" underscores how foreign residents' presence in South Korea remains conditional, subject to revocation if they are perceived as overstepping boundaries. This precarity shapes the forms of political engagement available to non-citizens, pushing them toward more cautious, supportive roles rather than direct participation.

Yet the presence of foreign residents also enriches democratic discourse by providing alternative perspectives and comparative insights. Foreigners who have experienced different political systems can recognize distinctive features of South Korean democracy that might seem natural to those raised within it. Their outsider status enables a certain analytical distance that can illuminate both strengths and weaknesses of Korean democratic practices.

Balancing Vulnerability and Resilience

Perhaps the most striking feature of South Korean democracy is how it balances vulnerability and resilience. On one hand, South Korea's democracy remains relatively young, consolidated only in the 1990s after decades of authoritarian rule. Democratic institutions are still developing, norms are contested, and authoritarian tendencies persist among some political actors and in certain domains like labor relations. The 2024 martial law declaration demonstrated that democratic backsliding remains a real possibility, that the gains of democratization cannot be taken for granted.

On the other hand, South Korean civil society has demonstrated remarkable resilience in defending democracy against threats. The swift mobilization against martial law, the successful impeachment of President Park, and the broader tradition of resistance to authoritarianism reveal a democratic culture that is deeply rooted despite institutional vulnerabilities. Citizens know how to act collectively in defense of democracy, and they are willing to do so even at personal cost.

This balance suggests that democratic consolidation is not primarily about institutional design, though institutions matter, but about cultivating citizens who understand democracy as something that requires active defense. South Korea's experience challenges liberal assumptions that democracy is self-sustaining once established, showing instead that democratic survival depends on citizens' willingness to mobilize when institutions fail or elites overstep.

The vulnerability-resilience dynamic also reflects South Korea's geopolitical position. Situated between major powers and facing an adversarial state to the north, South Korea has long experienced external threats that complicate democratic governance. Some leaders, including President Yoon, have attempted to invoke security concerns to justify authoritarian measures. Yet citizens have largely rejected such justifications, insisting that democracy is not a luxury to be suspended during crises but a necessity that must be defended precisely when it is most threatened.

Conclusion

The examination of South Korean repertoires of resistance from the Candlelight Revolution through the 2024 impeachment crisis reveals democracy not as a static institutional arrangement but as a lived practice requiring constant vigilance and active participation. South Korean citizens have developed distinctive ways of defending their democracy—peaceful but determined mass mobilizations, sophisticated coordination across digital and physical spaces, and a routinized approach to protest that integrates democratic participation into the rhythms of ordinary life.

The "sincerity to show up for community" referenced in this paper's title captures the ethos underlying South Korean resistance. Participation in democratic movements is treated not as heroic or exceptional but as a basic civic duty, something one does because the future of the country depends on ordinary people showing up when needed. The matter-of-fact tone of "I have to participate in the impeachment rally today" reflects this understanding—democracy is maintained not through the actions of elites or the design of institutions, though these matter, but through citizens' willingness to take responsibility for their political community.

For foreign residents like Maria, South Korean democratic movements inspire admiration while simultaneously highlighting the precarity of outsider status. Foreigners can observe and learn from South Korean resistance, but they cannot fully participate as equals. Their engagement must navigate boundaries of legitimacy and risk, acknowledging both their genuine concern for South Korea's democratic health and their position as outsiders whose right to comment on Korean politics is inherently contested.

South Korea's experience offers important lessons for democratic movements globally. It demonstrates that sustained, peaceful mass mobilization can be effective in holding power accountable. It shows how democratic participation can be integrated into ordinary life rather than remaining exceptional. It reveals the importance of historical consciousness in sustaining resistance—how memories of past struggles inform contemporary mobilizations. And it illustrates how citizens can act as the ultimate guarantors of democracy, stepping in when institutions fail or elites overstep.

Yet South Korean democracy also reminds us that democratic resilience is hard-won and must be constantly renewed. The willingness to "show up for community" reflects not cultural predisposition but lessons learned through painful experience, from the violence of Gwangju through the corruption scandals that triggered the Candlelight Revolution. Each generation must relearn and reaffirm its commitment to democracy through practice.

As South Korea navigates the aftermath of the 2024 impeachment crisis, it faces questions about how to strengthen democratic institutions while preserving the culture of active citizenship that has been its greatest asset. Can the routinization of protest be sustained without becoming rote or losing its mobilizing power? How can South Korea address deepening political polarization while maintaining the broad consensus necessary for effective resistance to authoritarianism? How can it create more inclusive forms of citizenship that recognize the contributions of foreign residents and others who remain outside formal political participation?

These questions will shape South Korea's democratic future. But the events of 2016-17 and 2024 suggest grounds for cautious optimism. When democracy has been threatened, South Koreans have shown they know how to respond—not perfectly, not without fear or confusion, but ultimately with the sincerity to show up for their community and the determination to defend what they and previous generations fought so hard to achieve. In an era when democracy seems fragile globally, South Korea's repertoires of resistance offer both inspiration and instruction for citizens everywhere who seek to defend and deepen democratic life.

References

Abelmann, N. (1996). Echoes of the past, epics of dissent: A South Korean social movement. University of California Press.

Ahn, J. E. (2024). How candlelight vigils matter in post-democratic South Korea? Routinisation, emotional dynamics, and organisational practices of protest activism.

Alimi, E. Y. (2015). Repertoires of contention. The Oxford handbook of social movements, 410.

Asian Boss. (2024, December 6). How South Koreans really feel about martial law and impeachment | Street interview [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/5qrssiZ6VeA

Choi, S. Y. (2019). Protesting grandmothers as spatial resistance in the neo-developmental era. Korean Studies, 43, 40-67.

Choi, S. Y. (2021). Recognition for resistance: Gifting, social media, and the politics of reciprocity in South Korean energy activism. Media, Culture & Society, 43(7), 1247-1262.

Choi, T. H. (2017). Hidden transcripts of teacher resistance: A case from South Korea. Journal of Education Policy, 32(4), 480-502.

Chun, J. J. (2022). Protesting precarity: South Korean workers and the labor of refusal. The Journal of Asian Studies, 81(1), 107-118.

Córtez, A., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2019). Socio-spatial repertoires as tools for resistance and expansive literacies. Transforming schooling for second language learners: Theoretical insights, policies, pedagogies, and practices, 123-142.

Gade, E. K. (2020). Social isolation and repertoires of resistance. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 309-325.

Hwang, I., & Willis, C. N. (2020). Protest by candlelight: A comparative analysis of candlelight vigils in South Korea. Journal of Civil Society, 16(3), 260-272.

Johansson, A., & Vinthagen, S. (2016). Dimensions of everyday resistance: An analytical framework. Critical Sociology, 42(3), 417-435.

Kang, J. (2012). Corporeal memory and the making of a post-ideological social movement: Remembering the 2002 South Korean candlelight vigils. Journal of Korean Studies, 17(2), 329-350.

Kern, T. (2009). Cultural performance and political regime change. Sociological Theory, 27(3), 291-316.

Mujin. (2024, December 4). How to go from president to unemployed in under 6 hours [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/LM9CzPtRSEE?si=X1sQoc40_ULCDftw

Porteux, J. N., & Kim, S. (2023). Delegating violence in democracies: Embedded developmentalism and persistence of labor repression in South Korea. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 24(2), 249-269.

Shin, E. K. (2015). The Morphology of Resistance: Korean Resistance Networks 1895-1945 (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University).

Shin, H. B. (2018). Urban movements and the genealogy of urban rights discourses: The case of urban protesters against redevelopment and displacement in Seoul, South Korea. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(2), 356-369.

Tilly, C. (2010). Regimes and repertoires. University of Chicago Press.

Um, H. K. (2013). The poetics of resistance and the politics of crossing borders: Korean hip-hop and 'cultural reterritorialisation'. Popular Music, 32(1), 51-64.