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?
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Soviet_Democracy
They do have democracy and voting and the actions of their government are far more aligned with the expressed will of their people than any Liberal Democracy (which are all just Oligarchies with a veneer of democracy).
https://act.represent.us/sign/usa-oligarchy-research-explained
The first link above is for the USSR, but the soviet (small ‘s’) form of democracy has been used by many communist democracies that the West decries as authoritarian helholes (which generally just means they refuse to bow to the international capitalist order).
The second is for the US but the only difference of you did the same research for any Liberal Democracy would be a question of degree not of substance.
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.
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.
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”.
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