This analysis explores why many commentators compare today’s prosecutor-led governance structure to Goryeo’s military junta. The argument suggests that power concentrated in a small inner circle—driven by loyalty, institutional capture, and internal purges—follows historical patterns regardless of era. By examining parallels between Jeong Jung-bu’s military dominance and modern prosecutorial power, the theory highlights warning signs for Korea’s political future.
Keep reading to understand how historical power structures echo in today’s politics and why analysts say factional governance risks repeating Goryeo’s downfall.
The Core Idea Behind the “Prosecutor Regime Parallel Theory”
This framework compares the current administration to Goryeo’s military junta, arguing that:
- Jeong Jung-bu – Yi Ui-bang – Yi Go structurally mirror Yoon Suk-yeol – Han Dong-hoon – Lee Jun-seok
- Both eras rely on loyalty networks, retaliation politics, and institutional dominance
- Factional interests allegedly override national interests
The theory claims that just as military rulers used coercion and fear to dominate the state, today’s administration allegedly governs through prosecutorial authority, political purges, and concentrated power.
Why This Analogy Resonates Today
According to the parallel theory, the current political climate reflects a period when:
- State institutions were sidelined
- Power clustered in a small inner circle
- Retaliatory politics overshadowed policymaking
- Government capacity deteriorated
- Internal divisions destabilized the ruling bloc
Modern examples—political investigations, leadership conflicts, administrative breakdowns—make the parallel especially striking for critics.
1. Setting the Stage: Goryeo’s Military Rule vs. Today’s Political Reality
Both eras share a core concern: national interest being overshadowed by factional conflict. Goryeo’s military takeover followed government failures in managing internal and external threats. The parallel theory argues modern Korea faces similar risks as leadership focuses on internal power struggles rather than diplomatic, economic, or security priorities.
2. Jeong Jung-bu and Yoon Suk-yeol: A Structural Comparison
Shared Background and Rise to Power
Jeong Jung-bu rose through royal favor, known for his imposing presence. Yoon Suk-yeol rose through prosecutorial ranks with strong presidential backing. Critics view both as figures elevated by institutional power and elite support.
Loyalty to the Group, Not the Leader
Jeong Jung-bu was loyal to the military class, not the king. Modern critics argue Yoon prioritized the prosecutorial institution over presidential authority during the Cho Kuk conflict.
The Spark Before the Power Shift
Goryeo’s tensions escalated when the king failed to mediate civil–military conflict. Modern parallels highlight Moon Jae-in’s inability to resolve the feud between Cho Kuk and Yoon Suk-yeol—empowering the prosecutor who would later challenge his administration.
Purges After Power Consolidation
After seizing power, Goryeo’s rulers purged rivals. Critics argue the current government targeted political adversaries and dissenting prosecutors, echoing historical patterns of institutional purges.
3. The Three-Person Power Structure: Then and Now
Jeong Jung-bu – Yi Ui-bang – Yi Go Yoon Suk-yeol – Han Dong-hoon – Lee Jun-seok
The analogy focuses on:
- Revenge politics
- Inner-circle rivalry
- Factional power-building
- Purge of inconvenient allies
Yi Go and Lee Jun-seok: The Outsiders
Yi Go contributed to the regime but was sidelined and eventually eliminated after challenging internal authority. Commentators see parallels in Lee Jun-seok’s expulsion and subsequent creation of a third political force.
Yi Ui-bang and Han Dong-hoon: The Successor Dynamic
Yi Ui-bang displayed ambition and succession intent. Han Dong-hoon was similarly positioned as the next leader until electoral losses weakened the structure.
4. State Institutions in Decline: Goryeo’s Middle Council vs. Today’s Administrative Vacuum
Goryeo’s military rulers bypassed formal government, relying on the Middle Council. Critics argue today’s administration similarly:
- Bypasses formal ministries
- Relies heavily on an insulated presidential office
- Rolls out uncoordinated policies
- Lacks transparent communication
- Purges internal critics
This is described as closed-door governance, weakening professional administration.
5. Policy Collapse and Public Hardship: A Recurring Pattern
Goryeo’s Military Rulers Excelled at Force, Not Governance
Their rule led to economic instability, famine, and strategic vulnerability.
Modern Parallels
Critics argue today’s government operates like a prosecutorial body—skilled at investigation and punishment, but not at producing sustainable policy. This is cited as a reason for:
- Failing public services
- Escalating medical and labor crises
- Uncoordinated policy rollouts
6. External Weakness, Internal Brutality: Mongol Invasion vs. Modern Diplomacy
Goryeo’s military leaders were harsh internally but weak in foreign affairs. Parallels include:
- Strong internal crackdowns
- Diplomatic missteps abroad
- Lack of foreign leverage
- Growing isolation
7. The Fate of Internal Alliances: How the Regime Consumes Itself
Goryeo’s military junta collapsed due to internal betrayal. Modern comparisons highlight:
- Yoon and Han transitioning from allies to rivals
- Succession struggles inside the ruling bloc
- Conservative infighting reminiscent of historical purges
8. The “Private Army” Concept: Sambyeolcho and Prosecutorial Power
Sambyeolcho functioned as the junta’s private militia. The parallel theory argues that Korea’s prosecution service has similarly been used as a selective enforcement tool:
- Investigations heavily targeting political opponents
- Prosecutorial power concentrated among loyalists
- Threats of indictment shaping political behavior
The comparison is metaphorical: prosecutors are not soldiers, but the power’s selective deployment echoes Sambyeolcho’s political function.
Conclusion: Historical Patterns Repeating in Modern Form
The parallel theory argues that power monopolies behave similarly across eras—whether using swords or legal authority. Key lessons emphasized include:
- National interest must supersede factional interest
- Institutions must not become personal machinery
- Closed governance leads to policy collapse
- Internal purges weaken the state
- Leadership focused on enforcement, not creation, risks long-term decline
By recognizing echoes between Goryeo’s military rule and today’s political climate, citizens are urged to identify early warning signs—and to demand governance that strengthens the nation rather than the ruling faction.
