What is election? Is it one of the democratic process? But what if election was held in the country with an absolute authoritarian regime, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
According to “North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in ‘unanimous poll win’” says that Kim jong-un, the country’s leader has been elected with a one-hundred percent vote which reflects the absolute support from his people. However, contrast to the general idea of election, the analyst says that this election is much about the confirmation of the party’s choice not people's choice.
Personally, i quite surprise that election which is familiar with the word 'democracy' is held in non-democratic country - North Korea, therefore, i wonder about its function. In general, we may hear the election with free and fair, on the other hand, election in this particular country, we might heard election with 'fear' in stead of free and fair. This is the reason that someone has been elected with a 'unanimous' or one-hundred percent vote. But dose it reflect absolute support from people? I don't think so, because I believe that human being is all about diversity - people are different in various way - background, attitude and also interest and so on. Election in general term is one of process that collect and translate those various interest into public policy - what is the majority and also minority of society really want- and to achieve this, people as citizen must have freedom to choose (which means that choices are provides with diversity) and the election must be processed fairly.
However, In North Korea context, election is not such a things, but just a rubber stamp or a puppet show. Election is the show and audiences are the world, especially western countries which embrace democratic regime. I might say that people are forced to cast their vote with fear atmosphere, and not mention that choices are also limited by the ruling party. Three years ago, during the funeral of the former leader, Kim ill-sung, North Koreans were crying hysterically over his death. Political analysts criticized that it was just another theater and the reason that people were crying hysterically because they fear that if they did not cried heavily, the authorities will punish them with loyalty charge. At first, someone may forced you to fear them, but in long terms, fear is reproduced by yourself.
__________
Reference
North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in ‘unanimous poll win’ (2014,
March 10). BBC News Asia. Retrieved March 13, 2014 from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26483940
Whilst I agree with Pa-naeng that the PDRK elections in North Korea are really just a sick joke, I don't agree with the idea that "North Koreans were crying hysterically over his death" (¶ 4) because they feared harsh punishment if they did not.
ReplyDeleteI do think it was theatre, but that doesn't mean the emotions displayed are not real: when Obama was sworn in as president of the United States, it was theatre, but I'm pretty sure the high emotions of the two million Americans who turned out to watch it were real. Similarly, when Pope John Paul II died, the expressions of emotion at his highly scripted and theatrical funeral in Rome were, I'm sure, perfectly genuine - people really were distressed and mourning the death of a man that many believed to be a saint and an inspirational leader.
Why do I think the emotional outbursts of grief for North Korea's Dear Leader Kim Il-sung were sincere, were real? Coming soon, but if you disagree with me, you might like to present your reasons first. Even better, if you agree with me, please support our opinion on this question.
And my thanks to Pa-naeng for giving us a such a juicy set of topical and controversial questions to discuss.
DeleteWhen we see North Koreans at appearances of their Dear Leaders, the current one or his ancestors, they certainly seem happy to be there, to be honouring, respecting and generally loving the father of their nation. Similarly, the expressions of grief at the death of the former Dear Leader in 2011 seemed perfectly sincere.
DeleteIt is possible that it's all pretence, but that seems an unlikely explanation to me: acting is hard work, and to get hundreds of thousands of people all acting the right way on cue for an international audience would be so impressive it isn't really believable.
A much simpler explanation, I think, is that the displays of emotion are sincere, that the loyal citizens of North Korea really do feel the highest respect, admiration and even love for their Dear Leaders. But then, we, outside of North Korea, know these sincere feelings of love and respect are totally unfounded, that although perfectly real, they are also worthless, so how is that to be explained?
Pa-naeng is certainly right in pointing out that if we think that Kim Jong-Un, his father Kim Jong-Il and grandfather Kim Il-sung are vicious dictators oppressing almost the entire people of North Korea, then have to explain this disagreement: either we are wrong, or the people of North Korea are wrong.
So, have the successive generations of leaders of the PDRK's Kim family been heroic and benevolent leaders, nobly serving their nation and the North Korean people, or have they been selfish, indulgent dictators harming millions of people to support their privileged lifestyle of luxury, wealth and perfectly undeserved respect? If we are right, the people of North Korea are totally wrong about their Dear Leaders. If they are right, we are totally wrong.
And how explain the massive misunderstanding of the other group?
I agree with your idea that their emotion are real, but I also want to clarify my idea.
DeleteThe death of Pope John Paul II, the death of Diana, Obama's first in inauguration and also the death of the grate leader of North Korea, personally, I don't refuse that people in these situation were crying and their tears and their intention are real, but the difference is these countries were governed by totally different regime; democracy and authoritarian (although, some might said it's the communism, the ideal communism is different from the practical one - however I still don't have a clearer picture of this ideal.) In democracy countries, choices are expected to provide - in this context is to cry or not to cry, on the other hand, I 'assume', in authoritarian, that these kind of choices are not provided, the only option is crying (however in both regime state propaganda has been working very well). And this is the difference which leads to my idea.
However, I do accept that we all have prejudice and so am I. My opinion on this issue might come from pro-democracy prejudice. Therefore your comment about who is the right/wrong, us or North Koreans and the massive misunderstanding of other groups, I think prejudice plays a big role. So there might be one particular answer of one particular prejudice? (I really don't appreciate this explanation, so I am studying on the issue) Personally, the challenging question is how can we develop 'dialogue' which will bridge both side of prejudice?
And thank you for your productive comment that refreshes my sleepy afternoon.
And while I was having my morning shower just now, it occurred to me that there was a connection between the issue sincerity that Pa-naeng has raised and the displays we put out to attract others for sex. Women find strong, muscular men sexy, as peahens presumably find peacocks with large, flashy tails sexy, and the safest way to give this impression is to actually be a strong human male or an impressively tailed peacock.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, as Mim points out in her response, we value things like honesty, and the safest way to give this impression to a potential mate or friend is to actually be honest - if you're only acting, there is a serious danger of being found out as a fake.
I don't think their leaders would risk the displays of emotion by North Korean citizens being fakes that might easily be proved mere acting. It's much safer to have the real thing to impress foreign observers as much as other citizens of that sadly benighted nation.
One of my more productive morning showers.
And I've now done my daily blogging quota. See you in an hour.