The only reason it worked is because the Millitary backed off after Parliament overturned it, despite the Millitary blocking access to the building from Parliamentarians. The Millitary isn't bound by some electoral laws of the universe, they just as easily could have said the vote was illigetimate. This is a unique circumstance and cannot be used as universal.

[–] frozenspinach@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The Millitary isn’t bound by some electoral laws of the universe, they just as easily could have said the vote was illigetimate.

Well I mean they are bound by laws, to the extent that laws have meaning. And responding to legal instruction would seem to validate the force and efficacy of the legal system, right?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 30 points 2 weeks ago

Yes and no. Being bound by "legal" means is a pretense for civility, ie the social contract, but the millitary in no way must follow this. The Republic of Korea has had several millitary dictatorships, from Park Chung-hee to Chun Doo-Hwan, and to think any system is immune to such circumstances is false thinking.

[–] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They did not back off after Parliament overturned it, they said they would uphold martial law until the president called it off. The president was the one who called it off after the vote from Parliament

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 weeks ago

My understanding is that Incel King threatened to continue it but backed off after the vote anyways as it seemed like he wouldn't have the continued support of the Millitary.