Curate, connect, and discover
The political plotline of TDJ was lowkey out here endorsing (at the very least sympathizing with/explaining the logic behind) terrorism as a tactic against a fascist oligarchy which hides behind populism for legitimacy, and, as a political science/international relations student in the US, I’m kinda fascinated by that.
In the first episode, we see a lone-wolf terrorist attack against the Supreme Court building after the warrant for Joo Il-do’s arrest is dismissed, a sign that the government was likely to be lenient against this CEO despite the wishes of the people. Leaving out the actions taken by our main characters in response and what that tells us about the priorities of the protagonists, we then see in the same episode a complete reversal of that expectation that the government will disappoint the people, when Kang Yohan sentences the guy to 200-something years in prison.
A key part of the logic behind terrorism (please don’t put me on a watchlist I’m just currently taking a course on insurgency and terrorism for my major) is the cost-benefit analysis of whether or not you can 1. draw sympathizers and supporters to your cause through a violent action that sends a message to an audience beyond the actual victims, and 2. through that support, coerce the targeted government into changing policy or action.
Yohan demonstrates with his harsh ruling against Joo Il-do that, in a Korea under his interpretation of the rule of law, the government will respond to violence done on behalf of “the people.” It’s no wonder the far-right populists of their society — Jukchang TV and crew — immediately gravitate to him, hailing him as a savior and a man of the people. And it’s no wonder that public opinion sways in his favor, since he capitalizes on the very real and valid pain that they feel when he showed that he was sympathetic to the sort of cause (like the one upheld by the bus driver earlier in the episode) that they would feel sympathetic to, even if the majority of people would not act in the same way.
The key point that surrounds the at-least-perceived success of terrorism as a tactic here is that Heo Jung-se has enacted every populist tactic in the playbook to assert his leadership. He claims that his (oligarchic, fascist) country is a democracy, that he is a ruler “for the people.” A leader chosen by “dear, respectable citizens.” His use of in-groups and out-groups in condemning criminals (migrants, foreigners, etc. etc.) while placing the “true-blooded Korean people” as sovereign, and ultimately creating the impression that it is the common people who hold power in society. Kang Yohan reinforces the idealistic part of these populist ideas to the public with his performance in the Live Court Show: he adamantly takes the side of the people in each case, and harshly punishes all who the people deem guilty on their behalf — and the people eat it up because it feels like hope that they really control their government.
Another thing about terrorism: it’s most useful as a tactic in democracies where the people are able to place real pressure upon their governments, where the displeasure of the people will lead to policy change. Heo Jung-se created a perception of his society as one of that kind, and in Kang Yohan, we find a man who enables that belief — even if in reality it is, also, mostly for personal motives. And we see in Kim Gaon, by the last episode, a man who is desperate enough in his fight against the corrupt government (and also just, y’know, generally in his life) to use terrorism as a tactic once again to place pressure, in the context of how he’s developed under Yohan’s influence over the course of the show — followed by the final trial by Yohan, who has straight up been planning to resort to terrorism all along, apparently.
I’m still really quite curious as to why the writer chose (and was allowed to choose, frankly LMAO) to end the storyline there — with a story that has left off with messaging that essentially equates to Terrorism Works (but only in a society that is already so used to violence that it can see some types of motivated violence as gratifying and, therefore, Not Horrific), especially with the nod to Gaon sticking around in politics and bureaucracy — and Yohan encouraging him to do so — after the fact. It’s a nod to the reality that even for those who use terrorism as a tool, they know reconstruction will be done “legitimately,” that non-legal violence can only be used as a tactic for so long before the return to legal routes is necessary in order to rebuild. But it’s definitely really interesting to think about how TDJ points out the usefulness of terrorism as a tactic in democracy — though I’m still not completely certain why, or whether the writer intended this as a commentary for Korea, or for the rest of the world…
Could go on a whole other ramble on why this is relevant to modern politics but I’ll stop there tonight, I reckon.
The Devil Judge is an excellent study on how terrorism Can be used against a fascist + populist government, yes.
Is the moral of The Devil Judge that, in order to beat fascists, you have to blow them up? Because I’m down.