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?

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldEnglish
    364·
    11 days ago

    It’s a reflection of the state’s earlier aspirations—the justification it used to overthrow the preceding authoritarian state.

    The problem is, the more drastic the social and political changes are that the new regime is trying to enact—and the more entrenched the preceding regime was—the more tempting it is to lean on authoritarian vanguardist methods to cut through the pushback. But once they start down that path, the means inevitably become the ends and everything winds up back where it started.

    • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
      1·
      11 days ago

      Nothing about this is inevitable, use of force does not magically obligated one to continue using force or to use it inappropriately, wielding authority does not magically corrupt people, these are the direct result of material conditions and different conditions can and do have different results

      • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        11 days ago

        State-scale institutions are always conglomerations of adaptive subsystems (or quickly become so, if they’re not completely dysfunctional). This institutional ecosystem selects for subsystems that use state institutions to perpetuate themselves—and its these systems, not the individuals within them, that increasingly evolve to exploit the state’s authoritarian powers.