South Koreans are apparently some of the harshest people in the world when it comes to their presidents.

Last week, lawmakers moved to remove President Yoon Suk-yeol from office following his short-lived martial law declaration on Dec. 3.

His surprise decision to suspend civilian rule was a high-stakes political gamble that stirred painful memories of the country’s authoritarian past, when human rights abuses and the suppression of democratic freedoms were widespread.

Yoon's actions evoked fears of a regression to that dark era, prompting an immediate and resolute public outcry, with protests erupting nationwide to demand his removal.

Yoon could become the second South Korean president to be impeached if the Constitutional Court allows it. Ironically, he was also instrumental in the ousting of Park Geun-hye, the first president to be impeached.

Yoon faces the possibility of being jailed for life, or even sentenced to death, if found guilty of insurrection charges, as South Korea’s legal system allows for such penalties in cases deemed severe threats to constitutional order and democratic governance.

This episode underscores a key lesson on the importance of drawing a firm line against abuses of power.

We saw how regular South Korean people and elected officials were more than willing to defend the nation’s democratic institutions, even as security and military personnel were called upon to prevent them from reversing Yoon’s order.

South Korea’s quick, coordinated actions offer an example of resilience that other nations might want to emulate.

Suddenly, the streets of Seoul became a symbol of a vibrant democracy that refuses to tolerate authoritarian tendencies.

Lawyer Yun Bok-nam described it as a transformative moment that reinforced the public’s democratic consciousness.

It is probably harsh for one person to elicit such a huge backlash, but it was necessary.

The impeachment of president Park in 2017 serves as a complementary example.

Her ouster, driven by revelations of unethical governance, was fueled by the “Candlelight Revolution,” a massive grassroots movement demanding justice.

These cases highlight how South Korea’s people and institutions work in tandem to hold leaders accountable.

Meanwhile in Indonesia, allegations of executive overreach in the lead-up to and during the February 2024 general election have largely gone unanswered, including accusations that former president Joko "Jokowi" Widodo used state institutions to undermine opposition candidates and facilitate the controversial vice presidential run of his son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka.

In fact, our political culture often permits leaders to evade accountability. This permissiveness fosters a dangerous environment where corruption and misconduct are normalized.

Instead of an outcry, President Prabowo Subianto’s recent suggestion that corruptors could be pardoned if they return what they stole saw members of his administration calling it a “legal breakthrough”.

Meanwhile, activists are saying that “winter is coming for Indonesia’s civil society”. These movements, while significant, lack the sustained impact needed to drive meaningful change.

Learning from South Korea, Indonesia could focus on strengthening institutional safeguards and empowering its citizenry to demand transparency and accountability.

The role of the youth and digital activism in South Korea’s democratic resilience offers valuable insights. K-pop fans, for instance, have turned their cultural influence into a platform for advocacy, demonstrating how popular culture can intersect with political engagement.

They have mobilized to raise awareness of social and political issues, often using their vast online networks to challenge narratives and hold power to account.

In Indonesia, similar strategies could amplify reform efforts, leveraging social media to unite diverse groups around common goals.

South Korea’s recent experiences emphasize the necessity of protecting democratic institutions at all costs by showing how a vigilant public and swift institutional responses can counteract abuses of power – a blueprint that Indonesia could adapt to safeguard its own democracy.

Accountability should not be negotiable, and moral ambiguity has no place in governance.

The lessons from South Korea remind us that democracy is not self-sustaining but requires constant effort from its citizens and institutions to thrive.