May 18, 1980. Students of Chonnam National University charge at armed soldiers during a protest against the closure of the institution and the newly imposed limitations on academic freedom. Armed forces violently retaliate, attacking the students with batons and rifles. The ever-increasing number of injuries and casualties enrage many civilians, many of whom join the fatal fight. Within a few days, the conflict rapidly spread over the southwest city of Gwangju. Numerous gunfights erupt, and armies openly fire at rebelling crowds.

The death of former president Chun Doo-hwan on November 23 due to multiple myeloma inevitably brings the people of South Korea back to this particular, unerasable fragment of history. Chun’s death comes only a month after the passing of his successor, Roh Tae-woo, on October 26; Korea has recently experienced the deaths of two largely controversial figures in contemporary history. Some associate Chun with the economic and social accomplishments during his presidential period; however, most remember him for his brutal legacies from the Gwangju uprising.

Chun used his experience as a former military commander and his training in the Korea Military Academy to wield control over the 1980 Gwangju massacre. Prior to his presidency, he rose through the ranks, holding roles such as Deputy Chief of Cheongwadae Security Office and Chief of the Defense Security Command from 1979 onwards. In that same year, the assassination of former president Park Chung-hee marked an end to the 16-year dictatorship and social suppression. During the momentary power vacuum, many citizens, especially the younger generation, anticipated the long-awaited shift towards democracy. However, Chun led a military coup, which allowed him to suppress ongoing democratic movements, seize power by force, and declare martial law. The Gwangju uprising was both the result and the cause of more organized protests against the military government and was ultimately used by Chun as a means to extend his presidency.

The atrocities committed in 1980 by the army in Gwangju are undeniably brutal. The death toll presented by the Martial Law Command points to 271 civilian casualties; such statistics, which were undisputed during Chun’s rule, are presently debated by many who remain skeptical and believe that the magnitude of the damage was downsized. The unrestrained use of tanks and helicopters by the army has probably led to the sharp rise in the number of deaths in Gwangju recorded that month. Accounts and testimonies from survivors paint an inhumane description of the bloodbath, labelling Chun as the “Butcher of Gwangju”. The events of the Gwangju uprising were meticulously censored during the next few years until his resignation in 1988; those who attempted to speak or write about the incident did so at the risk of persecution.

Mixed views of Chun arise from his policy reforms that emphasized industrialization and economic growth during the 1980s. Under his control, the economy prospered with a lower inflation rate, lower unemployment, and a high volume of exports. His establishment of a negotiable minimum wage system provided improved working conditions to the labor force. He altered the national college admission system, prohibiting all forms of private tutoring in favor of the economically disadvantaged students who could not afford them — such measures aimed to increase the college entrance quota and improve students’ access to education. Chun was also influential in hosting the 1988 Olympic games that led to the initial growth of national sports teams and international connections.

While Chun’s achievements are numerous and significant, they do not justify and should be judged separately from his gain of dictatorship by force in lieu of public support. The armed killing of citizens in the May 18 Gwangju massacre is unjust and demonstrates a grave violation of human rights. After being found guilty of mutiny, treason, and bribery along with his successor Roh Tae-woo in 1995, Chun received a death sentence which he was later pardoned from. However, both his ongoing court case and the payment of his mandated fine remain unfinished. Until his death, Chun saw the coup as necessary and maintained that he “would have taken the same action” if the same circumstances arose. Chun is closely compared to Roh, whose family had apologized and actively shown respect to Gwangju victims on his behalf. Even though Chun’s wife had also apologized at his funeral for “pains and scars” Chun inflicted during his presidency, her statement was criticized as being vague and ingenuine. 

Many expressed and offered condolences over his passing, but also conveyed regret for the lack of acknowledgment and sincere apology for the social injustices that resulted from his political decisions. As such, Chun’s death leaves behind a contested legacy and an unresolved portion of history.