This event is recorded as a turning point that brought down the Yushin era (Park Chung-hee's authoritarian system).
However, the immediate power vacuum was filled by military intervention, which delayed democratic progress.
Recently renewed calls for retrial and disputes over missing witnesses have reopened the debate over how to interpret the episode.
“One gunshot shook a regime” — Asking what the 10/26 incident means
Overview of the incident
The shooter was identified as Kim Jae-gyu, then head of the intelligence service (the agency roughly equivalent to a national intelligence director).
Several security officers, including the presidential chief of security Cha Ji-chul, also died.
Immediately after the shooting, a power vacuum emerged in Seoul.
That vacuum quickly signaled further political upheaval.
The act was read by many as more than a simple assassination.
Meanwhile, others warned it posed a grave threat to the rule of law and institutional stability.
Context in brief
The pressure of the Yushin system and internal power struggles coincided.
By the late 1970s, Park Chung-hee's long rule under the Yushin framework (an authoritarian constitutional overhaul) had deepened political grievances.
The Bu-Ma protests (mass pro-democracy demonstrations in Busan and Masan) made public dissatisfaction clear.
At the same time, factions inside the regime—hardliners and moderates—clashed.
Personal enmity between Kim Jae-gyu and Cha Ji-chul reflected that larger political split.
These combined pressures created conditions for the crisis to erupt.
Therefore, understanding the incident requires attention to social and political context, not just the act itself.
How the night unfolded
On October 26, in the intelligence chief's residence, President Park was shot and later died.
In court, Kim Jae-gyu declared he had fired at the "heart of Yushin."
That statement turned the event into a political gesture in many eyes rather than an isolated crime.
However, historians and legal analysts still dispute his motives and whether the act was planned.
After the killing, a short-lived interim government took control and emergency martial law was declared.
Nevertheless, the power void was soon exploited by elements of the military, culminating in the December 12 coup and the rise of a new military leadership.
Legal and historical assessment
Judgments on the incident remain sharply divided.
Court rulings at the time sentenced Kim Jae-gyu to death.
However, historians do not agree on a single interpretation.
Some view Kim as a figure who struck at dictatorship and accelerated democratization.
On the other hand, many condemn the violent removal of a head of state on legal and moral grounds.
At issue is the damage to the rule of law and institutional resilience.
On the one hand, removing a regime by force can end repression.
On the other hand, violent removal risks setting a precedent that political disputes may be solved by force, not law.
Arguments that defend the act
Those who justify the shooting point to the long-term harm and repression under the Yushin system.
Despite economic growth in the 1970s, political freedoms and human rights were severely constrained.
Popular uprisings such as the Bu-Ma protests signaled public anger that some argue had reached a breaking point.
Therefore, some defenders see Kim's action as a last-ditch attempt to stop an entrenched dictatorship.
They add that the incident helped topple the Yushin framework and created conditions for later democratic change.
Indeed, the event became a catalyst in the broader historical arc toward democratization.
Moreover, for some, moral justification goes beyond legal judgment; they feel a moral urgency that the courts cannot fully capture.
Consequently, Kim is regarded by a segment of the public as a symbol of resistance.
However, this view faces limits.
First, questions about legitimizing violence remain unavoidable.
Second, the ensuing transfer of power opened the door to military influence and delayed democratic gains.
Still, supporters argue the act must be weighed within the historical context, where they believe violent means were seen as unavoidable by some actors.
Arguments against justifying the act
An assassination of a president cannot be justified on any grounds.
Critics start from the primacy of law and public order.
Violence against a head of state fundamentally rejects legal governance.
Removing leaders by assassination undermines political stability and public trust.
In fact, the power vacuum after October 26 contributed to the December coup and the consolidation of a new military regime.
That sequence hindered democratic development and allowed a new form of authoritarian rule to take hold.
Therefore opponents emphasize the negative long-term consequences when judging the event.
They also stress that private violence cannot correct structural political problems; institutional reform and lawful processes are more sustainable.
Moreover, they warn that approving assassination as a political tool risks creating a self-justifying precedent.
On the whole, the anti-justification position calls for rejecting violent shortcuts in favor of rule-based, ethical remedies for political grievances.
Retrial issues and witness gaps
Recently, retrial proceedings have highlighted problems such as non-appearing witnesses and lost records.
For example, controversy over whether a well-known singer would testify drew public attention.
Witness testimony can clarify circumstances and illuminate power structures at the time.
However, the passage of decades and gaps in evidence preservation weaken the effectiveness of legal review.
Therefore, calls for institutional reform follow logically.
In particular, better archival preservation and formalized witness protection would help ensure that historical and legal truth can be pursued more fully.
Thus, retrials should aim not only at legal verdicts but also at improving the documentary record for history.
Social effects and ongoing concerns
The incident left social divisions and conflicting narratives.
The 10/26 shooting is not merely a past event.
Disagreement over its meaning continues to inflame public debate.
Some view it as a necessary break with dictatorship and assign it positive historical value.
However, others emphasize the harmful effects of breaking legal norms and the aftermath that delayed democratic progress.
Such divisions call for balanced public discussion in schools and civic forums.
History requires examining multiple sources and perspectives, not only polarized slogans.
Meanwhile, the danger that conspiracy theories and unchecked claims will spread during reexamination is real and worrying.
Therefore society must revisit questions about law, ethics, the legitimacy of power, and institutional resilience.
Establishing facts and learning from them remain a public responsibility.
Conclusion
The 10/26 incident ended the Yushin system and simultaneously ushered in a new and volatile power arrangement.
Its legacy is paradoxical: it both opened space for future democratization and enabled further military intervention.
Therefore, turning the event into simple heroism or pure condemnation flattens a complex history.
Careful legal and moral judgment must be paired with historical context.
Retrial efforts and securing key testimonies can help resolve remaining doubts.
However, without broader public consensus and institutional reform, a complete resolution will be difficult.
How, then, should we remember and reassess this episode?
