1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Many countries include 'Democratic' or 'People's' in their names, even though they are not democratic and do not serve their people. Examples: Democratic People's Republic of Korea Lao People's Democratic Republic People's Democratic Republic of Algeria Democratic Republic of the Congo And German Democratic Republic (East Side) in 1949–1990. None of these states are democratic, power and wealth are concentrated in the hands of a small ruling elite. Who are they fooling with these names?
North Korea has democracy and voting? That's news to me. They definitely don't have very much. So you don't think North Korea is authoritarian?
Virtually every country in the world has some form of elections, outside of a handful of literal monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. What's more debatable is how legitimate they are and which metrics we use to evaluate that.
Often a country is considered undemocratic if it doesn't allow international observers, but of course that requires a degree of trust, as it gives those observers the power to delegitimize the elections. Furthermore, the idea that observers from country A would be legitimate and that country B should be expected to let them in already carries a whole bunch of presumptions about which countries are and are not democratic, which winds up being circular. The US, for example, is never expected to invite international observers to legitimize it's elections.
If you really stop and think critically about how to evaluate elections from the outside, without just assuming the answer based on vibes and presumptions, it's a very challenging and complicated question. An American may take it as a given that China isn't democratic while their system is, but a Chinese person could easily feel the opposite. Without establishing clear metrics, it would be impossible to evaluate who is correct from a neutral and objective standpoint. Even if a metric is agreed on, people might have different assessments based on looking at different information.
Personally, when possible I prefer to avoid arguing over it when possible because without establishing a metric it's impossible to discuss productively, and if you try to establish a clear metric, people will just immediately call you a tankie or red fascist because of course everyone knows bad country is bad, and how dare you try to examine things from a neutral point of view instead of agreeing with what "everyone" already "knows." I've also found that it's better not to talk shit about random countries I've never been to and which don't really affect my life in any meaningful way.
Having said that, if you're actually interested in learning more about the subject in good faith, you might be interested in this Luna Oi video where she discusses how the government of Vietnam actually functions and collects feedback from regular people, or the one where she describes how elections work.
Luna’s videos have been so informative and interesting. Honestly they kind of make me want to go to Vietnam someday.
This sounds like a great way to erase the definitions of all words. Most times when we use words, we understand that rarely anything is absolute. For example, we call western nations capitalist even though they all have some degree of socialism. Just because there aren't clearly defined lines, doesn't mean that all words lose meaning.
The fact that some nations have opaque elections, is actually a strong sign that they are authoritarian. Because suppression of information is authoritarian.
When the US refuses to invite Chinese election observers to oversee it's elections, is that "suppression of information?" That's nonsense.
The reason that a country wouldn't invite observers isn't that they're trying to suppress information, it's that they don't want to give another country the authority to delegitimize them.
What's actually far more authoritarian is this idea that every country in the world needs to bend the knee and allow the West to come into their country and declare whether they are a legitimate democracy or not.
Suppose there's a country that's a legitimate democracy, but they have such valuable and plentiful natural resources that any major power they invited in would seek to delegitimize them in order to seize control of said resources. Because you assume that they're "authoritarian" for not inviting in a major power to oversee their elections, you are ruling out the possibility that such a state could exist.
What this means in practice is that you're giving the West a justification for aggression towards any country on the planet. If they refuse to invite observers, they must be authoritarian and illegitimate, but if they do invite observers, then those observers can simply declare the government illegitimate anyway.
What that works out to in practice is nothing short of chauvanism, imperialism, and world domination. It isn't a real, objective metric, because it's only obfuscating the real metric which is just how well a country gets along with the West. A country being on bad terms with the West does not definitionally make it undemocratic, but by your standards it would be.
Opaque elections are a sign for information supression, but not the only sign.
However if I wanted North Korea to be considered democratic, I would first ask that voting be implemented such that voters can't be identified and punished for voting against a candidate (source)
I have little reason to weigh in on the DPRK specifically because it makes no difference to my positions in practice. Even if retired US army lieutenant-colonel Roger Cavazos' allegations are true, my stance is the same: just leave them alone.
The US government has a very long record of orchestrating regime change in countries across the globe, but I'm not familiar with any case where the result was actually an improvement for the people who live there. It's also incredibly inconsistent and hypocritical for the US to take such an aggressive stance against the DPRK while buddying up to countries like Saudi Arabia which make absolutely zero pretence of being a democracy. If I were going to entertain the notion that US policy is in any way driven by benevolence and promoting democracy, then obviously step 1 would be to not actively give weapons and military support and even perform military attacks on behalf of a literal monarchy.
Why is it that the DPRK and Saudi Arabia are treated so differently? Because the Saudis provide the US with access to their country's natural resources, while the DPRK doesn't. This is a far more consistent through-line that explains US foreign policy much better than any concern with "human rights" or "promoting democracy." When they do talk about promoting democracy, it's opportunistic, it's just because someone who is standing in the way of the expansion of the empire can plausibly be labeled as undemocratic.
Even in cases like Afghanistan, which is controlled by Al Qaida and clearly undemocratic, I see no reason to support sanctions or other forms of aggression towards them, because I have no interest in supporting imperialistic expansionism. If a country is just trying to be left alone, why would I support going there and fucking with it?
I think "authoritarian" is a meaningless designation that only really means "geopolitical adversary of the current hegemon".
The term came into common usage during the Cold War as a way of conflating communist countries with fascist ones in the minds of Western Liberals.
Authoritarian simply indicates how much power the government has. There's not a perfectly precise boundary, but you'd have to be crazy to say North Korea has the same degree as France. This sort of "all sides" argument is reductive and problematic.
The DPRK doesn't put people in prison for having weed and does put people in prison for exploiting other citizens. Both governments have near absolute power, the main difference is how that power is used.
Every state is Authoritarian by that soft definition. That just leaves the question of who weilds the authority and who benefits from it.
The "reductive and problematic" argument here is the pro-fascist talking point that the dictatorship of capital is freedom and anything else is "authoritarian".
The DPRK absolutely puts people in prison for having weed, are you a teenager trying to be contrarian? Every time you MLs talk you just turn more people off to socialism.
Meanwhile weed is legal in my state, despite the US federal government having "absolute power" according to you.
.https://koryogroup.com/travel-guide/faq-is-marijuana-legal-in-north-korea
If there is no reasonable way for a citizen (as in, somebody not currently part of the government) in the DPRK to influence the laws, then that is what makes it authoritarian. It's about governance not capital.
North Korea has a really fucking weird political system but luckily it is not the only country that calls itself socialist. The USA are also undemocratic but you don't seem to judge all parliamentary "democracies" by one especially bad example