As South Korea faces its own assault on democracy, the world watches to see if it can succeed where the US faltered after Jan. 6.

Flags of South Korea and the US are seen as a demonstrator scales security fencing and others confront police during a violent protest outside the Seoul Western District Court early Jan. 19. Hundreds of supporters of suspended President Yoon Suk Yeol broke into the building and vandalized it. (Newsis)
Flags of South Korea and the US are seen as a demonstrator scales security fencing and others confront police during a violent protest outside the Seoul Western District Court early Jan. 19. Hundreds of supporters of suspended President Yoon Suk Yeol broke into the building and vandalized it. (Newsis)

Images from Seoul’s Western District Court on Jan. 19 immediately drew parallels with the infamous Jan. 6, 2021 storming of the US Capitol. Both events featured crowds of supporters -- fueled by conspiracy theories and loyalty to a disputed leader -- using violence to attack the core institutions of democracy.

These incidents, though separated by years and continents, reveal unsettling parallels about the fragility of each democratic institution under the weight of political extremism.

The comparison matters because South Korea’s democracy, though young but often praised for its resilience, is facing a moment of reckoning.

“What happened in Seoul and Washington are symptoms of a global wave of democratic backsliding, where far-right movements exploit public distrust and institutional weaknesses. Understanding the similarities and differences helps us recognize how to safeguard democracy in the face of these shared threats,” said political science professor Park Won-ho from Seoul National University.

In common: violence fueled by distrust, conspiracy theories

At the heart of both attacks was a shared belief: that the institutions of government had betrayed the people. In Washington, supporters of Donald Trump were convinced the 2020 election was “stolen” through widespread fraud -- a claim that the US president who lost reelection in that election repeated relentlessly without evidence. This week, Trump returned to the White House as president.

Supporters of President Yoon Suk Yeol and police officers face off at an entrance of the Seoul Western District Court on Sunday. (Yonhap)
Supporters of President Yoon Suk Yeol and police officers face off at an entrance of the Seoul Western District Court on Sunday. (Yonhap)

In Seoul, suspended President Yoon Suk Yeol’s supporters, emboldened by his own claims that the judiciary was biased and the charges against him were politically motivated, took it upon themselves to “defend” their leader by storming the courthouse that had issued an arrest warrant against him. Yoon, for his Dec. 3 martial law declaration, has been suspended from office since Dec. 14 and is under criminal investigation for leading an insurrection and committing abuse of power.

“This wasn’t just a protest. It was an attack on the judiciary itself,” said political science professor Lee Joon-han from Incheon National University. “The rioters weren’t challenging a policy or law. They were trying to physically disrupt the justice system. That’s unprecedented in modern South Korean history.”

Both events also relied heavily on far-right conspiracy theories amplified by social media. In South Korea, far-right YouTubers like Ko Sung-kuk TV with 1.2 million subscribers and Pastor Jeon Kwang-hoon rallied thousands of protesters, spreading claims that Yoon was the victim of a political conspiracy. These actions mirror the way QAnon and “Stop the Steal” narratives galvanized US rioters in 2021.

SNU professor Park noted the dangerous global connections here: “Far-right movements around the world share ideas and strategies. South Korea’s far-right, for example, has borrowed rhetoric from the US, particularly claims about election fraud and the 'deep state.' These ideas are no longer confined to one country -- they’re spreading and becoming part of a global playbook.”

Trump, Yoon and the role of leadership

In both crises, the role of the leaders -- Trump and Yoon -- was pivotal. Trump’s speech on Jan. 6, where he urged his followers to “fight like hell,” has been widely criticized for inciting the Capitol attack.

Similarly, Yoon’s public statements played a key role in fueling anger among his supporters. For weeks, he framed the actions against him as corrupt and illegitimate, calling the charges against him part of a “broken legal system.”

But Yoon’s actions went even further. “Unlike Trump, who primarily used rhetoric (at that time), Yoon crossed the line with the Dec. 3 martial law declaration. It wasn’t just words -- it was action.”

According to him, Yoon’s martial law order also provided a powerful symbolic moment for his base. When military forces stormed the National Assembly last month, smashing windows and blockading lawmakers, it set a precedent. “If the state can break into a democratic institution, why can’t we?” is how many of Yoon’s supporters reportedly justified their actions at the courthouse.

Professor Park also pinpointed a notable difference. “I’m not entirely sure Trump personally believed the conspiracy theories he promoted, but President Yoon appears to genuinely believe his own,” he said.

Key differences

While both the US Capitol and Seoul courthouse riots targeted democratic institutions, the nature of those institutions -- and what they represent -- differ. In the US, the attack on Congress was an assault on the legislative branch, directly aimed at overturning an election. In South Korea, the judiciary -- a pillar of the rule of law -- was under attack.

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people try to storm the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Getty Images)
Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people try to storm the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Getty Images)

Another critical difference lies in the political systems. Yoon’s single five-year term means, unlike Trump, he cannot return to the presidency once he is removed from office, removing one major incentive for ongoing mass mobilizations. But some rioters who support Yoon reportedly hoped the US military might somehow intervene on Yoon’s behalf, an idea professor Lee calls “fantastical.”

Professor Lee cautioned that the far-right landscape won’t vanish easily. “When a movement feels persecuted, it often reemerges in different forms,” he said. “Even if Yoon is permanently removed from power, his supporters might become even more radical, claiming he was never given a fair trial in the first place.”

Korea’s chance to lead by example

In the US, the aftermath of Jan. 6 saw a massive legal response, with over 1,000 rioters convicted and some sentenced to lengthy prison terms. But Trump’s recent return to the presidency has upended this accountability effort, with sweeping pardons for Jan. 6 participants signaling a dangerous erosion of the rule of law.

President Donald Trump presents an executive order signed on Jan. 20, in the Oval Office, pardoning thousands of participants in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. (AP-Newsis)
President Donald Trump presents an executive order signed on Jan. 20, in the Oval Office, pardoning thousands of participants in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. (AP-Newsis)

In South Korea, the government and judiciary appear committed to holding the Jan. 19 rioters accountable. Nearly 90 protesters have been arrested, with charges ranging from trespassing to attempted murder. Acting President Choi Sang-mok has vowed that “there will be no leniency for those who attacked the rule of law.”

“This is an important moment for South Korea,” says Lee. “Unlike the US, where pardons have effectively erased accountability for Jan. 6, South Korea has the opportunity to set a precedent. By prosecuting these rioters, the country can show that no one is above the law.”

A battle for democratic stability

From a broader political perspective, the Jan. 19 riot has revealed a troubling truth: far-right extremism, once seen as a fringe phenomenon, has been actively cultivated and grown in South Korea. This movement, fueled by conspiracy theories and distrust in institutions, has been emboldened by Yoon’s rhetoric and actions.

Professor Park warns of the long-term implications: “Even if Yoon is impeached or removed from office, the far-right ecosystem he nurtured is unlikely to disappear. These groups have formed communities, both online and offline, that are deeply radicalized. This isn’t just a political crisis -- it’s a societal one.”

At the same time, South Korea’s response to this crisis could offer valuable lessons for the world. Unlike in the US, where political divisions have only deepened since Jan. 6, South Korea has a chance to reinforce its democratic norms by holding the rioters accountable.

As Lee put it, “The world is watching. If South Korea can successfully navigate this moment, it will send a powerful message: that even in the face of deep polarization, democracy can prevail.”