In dictatorships, even the goddess of justice is merely a subordinate of the dictator. Hanmi Ilbo

The assertion that something is legal because a court has issued a warrant is common. However, people often do not accept its legality. The reason is simple: there are clear conditions under which something is perceived as illegal despite being legal.

First, when those in power abuse legal procedures as a tool for self-defense.

The law is a mechanism to restrict power and protect citizens. However, when those in power use legal procedures as a means to maintain their authority, legality quickly transforms into the weaponization of power. The case of North Korea clearly illustrates this. Kim Jong Un's decisions are always "legal," yet the international community does not recognize them as such. This is because they are merely a means of self-justification for the ruler.

Second, when courts and institutions fail to check the logic of power and only confirm formal legality.

The core of democracy lies in the separation and checking of powers. However, if the judiciary only verifies procedures and ignores substantive legitimacy, warrants become tools to rationalize abuses of power. This is why the mere fact that a warrant has been issued does not guarantee legality.

Third, when the media and citizens lose their surveillance and critical functions and interpret legality/illegality through the language of power.

When the media becomes a megaphone for power and citizens abandon their own rights, legality becomes absolute. The ruler's declarations become law, and illegality is defined according to standards set by power. This is the moment when the word "legal" is no longer a legal concept but a political propaganda slogan.

When these three conditions are met simultaneously, history has called such phenomena "dictatorship." A structure cloaked in the guise of legality but in reality is merely a self-preservation mechanism for power; that is the essence of dictatorship.

The problem is that South Korea is currently experiencing all three of these conditions simultaneously.

Those in power use the law as their shield, the judiciary only confirms formal requirements, and the media repeats the language of power verbatim.

This is why citizens do not agree with the argument, "It's legal, so why is it a problem?" The perception is spreading that although it may be procedurally legal, it is substantively illegal.

At this point, each reader will likely have someone in mind.

Some may think of North Korea's Kim Jong Un, while others may think of the current administration.

What is important is not a specific individual, but the social reality where the word "legal" itself is no longer trusted.

In a democracy, legality is a promise that guarantees citizen consent and legitimacy, going beyond mere procedure.

When this promise is broken, legality appears as illegality, and the authority of law crumbles. All that remains is the will of the ruler, and at that moment, the regime embarks on the path of dictatorship.

Today, the crisis South Korea faces is precisely on that boundary. If we tolerate dictatorship in the guise of legality, the collapse of freedom and the silence of citizens are unavoidable.

#CrisisOfLegality #ConditionsOfDictatorship #AbuseOfPower #FormalLegality #DisarmingTheJudiciary #MediaSilence #SouthKoreanDemocracy #WeaponizationOfLaw