Basically how every Bolshevik inspired “democracy” works too, not just Korea. Including Cuba which leftists bizarrely love to pretend is somehow better.
Eh… I don’t think the Democratic process can be measured in a binary pass or fail. There are definitely degrees of Democratic process, and I think the claim that Cuba and North Korea are virtually the same is a pretty large conflation.
Cuba at least has local elections which are vetted by the party. Meanwhile North Korea has single candidate elections that are pre-approved by the party.
If we’re just throwing nuance out the window, I’m not really sure if a country like America would really pass the “true democracy” test.
What’s the difference between vetted and pre-approved?
The difference is one election has more than one candidate to choose from and the election must be vetted by the state, and one election has just one candidate whom the state has already selected, and your vote doesn’t matter because the winner has already been decided.
Requiring the party’s approval is only a small step from them selecting the candidates though. Since they can simply refuse to approve any competing candidates.
Or since Cuba has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, simply arrest them.
I admit I’m not familiar with the process for selecting local candidates but in a totalitarian system it hardly matters since the national government has absolute control over almost everything anyway.
In Cuba there are actual local elections between members of the local community. Those competing must be in good standing with the party, but that’s fairly standard.
In N Korea the party selects the candidate and they run unopposed.
Interesting. But requiring being in good standing with the party is already enough to make these elections illegitimate. And given the lack of dissent allowed and the subservient position local officials typically have to national leaders this seems like a very small difference to me.
Interesting. But requiring being in good standing with the party is already enough to make these elections illegitimate.
There are plenty of political parties across the world that require candidates to be in good standing with the party before running for them in an election.
It’s not like any political party is going to be happy if an infamous person is representing them in an election.
If anything your grievance should be with single party democracies. Then again, there are plenty of single party states that aren’t criticized anywhere close to Cuba.
Like I said, democracies need to be weighed on a scale. Plus, simply being a democracy doesn’t necessarily mean a country is going to be a more equitable or virtuous society.
Yes, the issue is with single party states because in such states, the party and the state are basically synonymous. Insofar as a party is a voluntary organization, it’s fine to set standards for ideological unity. But once those standards become a requirement to access political power, your state is functionally no longer democratic.
And sure, there are other one party states, and they’re also bad. But I’m criticizing the Cuban government specifically because it has more defenders on Lemmy than those states do. Just look at how many angry comments I got.
North Korea has local elections and the candidates, plural, have to live in the community they’re running to oversee.
Wasn’t the dual-candidate selection method only introduced in selected localities in like the last year or so? I’m pretty sure the SPA is still a single candidate selection as well.
It’s very clearly modeled after the government of the USSR, which was created by the Bolsheviks. I’ve seriously never heard anyone claim otherwise so maybe you can elaborate on whatever the hell you are talking about.
Basically how every Bolshevik inspired “democracy” works too, not just Korea. Including Cuba which leftists bizarrely love to pretend is somehow better.
Not better than cuba under Batista or not better than North Korea? I think either claim would be kinda dubious…
In terms of democracy they’re all about equal. Essentially none.
Eh… I don’t think the Democratic process can be measured in a binary pass or fail. There are definitely degrees of Democratic process, and I think the claim that Cuba and North Korea are virtually the same is a pretty large conflation.
Cuba at least has local elections which are vetted by the party. Meanwhile North Korea has single candidate elections that are pre-approved by the party.
If we’re just throwing nuance out the window, I’m not really sure if a country like America would really pass the “true democracy” test.
What’s the difference between vetted and pre-approved?
I would also fail the US, true.
The difference is one election has more than one candidate to choose from and the election must be vetted by the state, and one election has just one candidate whom the state has already selected, and your vote doesn’t matter because the winner has already been decided.
My understanding was that Cuba also only had single candidate “elections”, chosen by the party. You’re saying that’s not correct?
I don’t know if that’s the case, I was just clarifying the notions put forth by the user you were replying to.
I see, I didn’t notice you weren’t OP.
Requiring the party’s approval is only a small step from them selecting the candidates though. Since they can simply refuse to approve any competing candidates.
Or since Cuba has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, simply arrest them.
Do you have a single source for this belief or is it something you intuited from the aether?
https://lens.civicus.org/cuba-elections-without-choices/
I admit I’m not familiar with the process for selecting local candidates but in a totalitarian system it hardly matters since the national government has absolute control over almost everything anyway.
In Cuba there are actual local elections between members of the local community. Those competing must be in good standing with the party, but that’s fairly standard.
In N Korea the party selects the candidate and they run unopposed.
Interesting. But requiring being in good standing with the party is already enough to make these elections illegitimate. And given the lack of dissent allowed and the subservient position local officials typically have to national leaders this seems like a very small difference to me.
There are plenty of political parties across the world that require candidates to be in good standing with the party before running for them in an election.
It’s not like any political party is going to be happy if an infamous person is representing them in an election.
If anything your grievance should be with single party democracies. Then again, there are plenty of single party states that aren’t criticized anywhere close to Cuba.
Like I said, democracies need to be weighed on a scale. Plus, simply being a democracy doesn’t necessarily mean a country is going to be a more equitable or virtuous society.
Yes, the issue is with single party states because in such states, the party and the state are basically synonymous. Insofar as a party is a voluntary organization, it’s fine to set standards for ideological unity. But once those standards become a requirement to access political power, your state is functionally no longer democratic.
And sure, there are other one party states, and they’re also bad. But I’m criticizing the Cuban government specifically because it has more defenders on Lemmy than those states do. Just look at how many angry comments I got.
…North Korea has local elections and the candidates, plural, have to live in the community they’re running to oversee.
Juche is set up pretty similar to China’s democracy at the lower levels, which isn’t surprising because of the influence of Mao.
Wasn’t the dual-candidate selection method only introduced in selected localities in like the last year or so? I’m pretty sure the SPA is still a single candidate selection as well.
How is Cuba a Bolshevik inspired democracy? The fact that you even claim this indicates you don’t know what the Bolshevik approach was.
It’s very clearly modeled after the government of the USSR, which was created by the Bolsheviks. I’ve seriously never heard anyone claim otherwise so maybe you can elaborate on whatever the hell you are talking about.