Is North Korea actually a democracy?
No.
Recently, the popular communist YouTuber Hakim (190k subs) made a video titled "What If North Korea was a Democracy?". In it, Hakim argues that North Korea is a proletarian democracy:
Regardless, and here's the bit that's controversial, and shouldn't be: The DPRK has a fairly decently functioning model of proletarian democracy, not too dissimilar from Cuba.
This statement is absurd and the evidence Hakim presents dissolves on contact with reality.
In reality, North Korea is a fake democracy with sham elections. No Western sources or defectors are necessary to make this claim. All claims below come directly or indirectly from official DPRK media, and I provide direct links to all sources cited.
The blogpost below is long. Cope and seethe, ADHD-cels. Here are its sections:
Introductory notes
Background, part 1: How do North Korean elections work?
Background, part 2: Who wins North Korean elections?
Background, part 3: Do North Korean parties have meaningful power?
Background, part 4: Do North Korean voters' meetings have meaningful power?
How well do Hakim's arguments that North Korea is democratic fare?
Bullshit #1: Do North Korean elections have multiple candidates?
Bullshit #2: Do North Korean voters receive two ballots, one for yes and one for no?
Why does it matter?
Introductory notes
First: The following article is long. (It's got a lot of pictures!) It doesn't just argue against Hakim, but against all the meaningful arguments I've seen in favor of North Korea as a democracy. It's very hard to avoid the conclusion that North Korean democracy is a sham.
Second: This post is not a "dunk" on Hakim. I like Hakim, like most of their content, and hope they see continued success! (Hakim: If you're reading this, and you've found any additional modern writings that defend revolutionary socialism, please send them my way!) This post simply refutes several bad arguments, in hopes that Hakim and other Marxist-Leninist and vanguardist socialists will change their mind.
Third: The fact that North Korea is not a democracy does not justify the inhumane and ineffective sanctions or their harms on North Korean people. In fact, it does the opposite.
Fourth: If you send this blogpost to someone who defends North Korea as democratic, there's a good chance they will reject the post outright and refuse to respond to any of the evidence presented. Flavor words may include "imperialist", "Western", "bourgeois individualism", and/or "orientalist". In fact, every claim below is supported by direct links to DPRK government media. Tell them to "read theory", link the blogpost again, and ask them why the evidence shown here is wrong. Bonus points if you ping me!
Finally: Subscribe to my Substack!
Background, part 1: How do North Korean elections work?
This section will discuss the mechanics of North Korean election structure, which are crucial to understanding whether they could plausibly be democratic.
Throughout this post, I'll contrast two views of North Korean institutions:
The democratic view: North Korean institutions have real power over policy and are really controlled by a broad group of North Korean people.
The rubber-stamp view: North Korean institutions have rote input by the people but are de-facto controlled by a narrow group of current rulers.
Which positions gets elected?
North Korean people elect three political positions, in a structure that should be familiar to citizens of federal countries like the USA:
A local assembly (city or county)
A provincial assembly
A national assembly: The Supreme People's Assembly (SPA)
How do we know that?
North Korea doesn't produce much media that meaningfully explains its elections.
As a result, virtually everyone ends up citing (the minutes to) a 1991 speech by Li Chun Sik to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). Li was the North Korean delegate to the IPU and a leader in North Korea's parliament ("the Deputy Secretary General of the Standing Committee of the Supreme People's Assembly").
In their speech to the IPU, Li named the three tiers of positions mentioned above. They also noted that each voter has "only one ballot to cast", which they cast "personally to a deputy in candidacy", a fact which will be important later:
How are candidates selected?
Supporters of North Korea often assert that North Korean candidates are selected from "mass meetings", at which people volunteer for the position. (North Korean media translates the term as "voters' meetings".) This conjures images of people watching their comrades on stage, giving speeches and debating who should be the candidate.
That's not what happens in reality. In the same 1991 IPU speech, Li goes on to explain that "it was the practice for all candidates to be nominated by the parties". (All three legal parties in North Korea are part of one electoral coalition.)
This question is further examined in the section titled "Do North Korean voters' meanings have meaningful power?"
Li notes that candidates are "considered by the electors in meetings in the workplace or similar". This sentence is the single mention of voters' meetings in Li's speech, and they don't even bother to explain their powers or how they work!
After nomination and consideration, candidates are then "examined by the United Reunification Front and then by the Central Electoral Committee, which allocated candidates to seats".
How do candidates win an election?
As mentioned by Li, in North Korean general elections, every ballot has the name of just one candidate. As a result, voters can't vote for another candidate.
Instead, voters "indicate approval or disapproval of the candidate". To approve, voters cast the ballot unmarked; to disapprove, voters cross out the candidate's name.
Here's a high-quality picture of the front and back of a ballot from Hankook Ilbo, a liberal South Korean magazine, in an article on the 2019 elections. As you can see, each ballot simply names the position (front) and the candidate (back); no other candidate options are available:
Front: "Delegate to the Supreme People's Assembly Election Ballot" [최고인민회의 대의원 선거표], Back: "Candidate Name: Jil Geum-sun" [후보자이름 질 금 순]
Of course, citing Hankook Ilbo breaks my "no need to trust Western media" rule. Fortunately, we can use North Korean media to obtain the same result.
It's easy to find North Korean media showing the front of a ballot (with the position name) of ballots, but I've only found one North Korean media pic which shows the back of a ballot (with the candidate name).
Here's a (low resolution) picture that shows the backs of two ballots from Tongil Voice, a North Korean radio station, in a photo series covering the 2019 elections. It's impossible to read the characters, but the design is clearly the same:
(The vast majority of Korean names are three Hangul syllable blocks long. North Korean ballots put one space between each block, such as "질 금 순", or "Jil Geum Sun". You can clearly see names in that format on the second line of both ballots.)
It's far easier to find official North Korean photographs of the fronts of ballots. For example, here's a picture that shows the front of two ballots from Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), the official North Korean government news agency, in a broadcast covering the 2011 elections (web.archive.org timestamp, permanent copy):
Left: "Delegate to the Provincial People's Assembly Election Ballot" [도 인민회의 대의원 선거표], Right: "Delegate to the County People's Assembly Election Ballot" [군 인민회의 대의원 선거표]
For another example, here's a picture from the Korean Friendship Association (KFA) of the UK, in a video covering the 2019 elections (archive.is timestamp, permanent copy):
"Delegate to the Supreme People's Assembly Election Ballot" [최고인민회의 대의원 선거표]
(All ballots in all elections follow one color scheme: red = Supreme People's Assembly ballot, blue = provincial assembly ballot, green = county / city assembly ballot. This will be important later!)
In short, here's how North Korean elections work:
The Democratic Front "nominates" all candidates
Local voters "consider" the candidate in a voters' meeting
The Democratic Front "examines" all candidates
The Central Electoral Committee "allocates" one candidate to each seat
Finally, voters in the general election receive a ballot with one candidate
They can "approve" by casting the ballot unmarked
They can "disapprove" by marking out the candidate's name
(In theory, candidates have to win an absolute majority of the vote. In practice, as will be shown later, every candidate wins 100% of the vote.)
The mechanics of the North Korean electoral system bode poorly for the "democratic view". You should be very skeptical of any electoral system which only gives the general public one candidate. You should also be skeptical of electoral systems which centralize power in any party.
It gets worse.
Background, part 2: Who wins North Korean elections?
This section will discuss which parties and which people actually win North Korean elections, which is crucial to understanding whether they could plausibly be democratic.
What parties exist?
Article 11 of North Korea's 2016 constitution affirms that "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (DPRK) "shall conduct all activities under the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea":
As a result, North Korea has just one legal electoral coalition: the "Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea", sometimes called the "Fatherland Front".
Opponents of North Korea sometimes claim that North Korea is a "one-party state". That's technically false. North Korea legally allows three parties:
the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK), a nominally communist party
the Korean Social Democratic Party (KSDP), a nominally social-democratic party
the Chondoist Chongu Party, nominally represents a religious movement
Despite the existence of multiple legal parties, all real political control rests in the Worker's Part of Korea (WPK):
All three parties belong to the Democratic Front, which is led by the Worker's Part of Korea (WPK).
As shown below, the last election where the WPK got less than 80% of the vote was 1948 -- 75 years ago.
Independent candidates can run, but they must all coalition with the Democratic Front.
The Chongyron (General Association of Korean Residents in Japan) elects five delegates to the Supreme People's Assembly. The Chongyron is run by the WPK.
This question is further examined in the section titled "Do North Korean parties have meaningful power?" For now, just know that these three parties exist in the Democratic Front, which is led by the WPK, and that the Democratic Front has won every election since 1948.
What do those Democratic Front victories look like?
The table below is compiled from the election results reported by Korea Central News Agency (KCNA):
A few facts stand out:
In every election from 1990 to 2019, North Korean government media reports that the Democratic Front received 100% of the ballots cast and that turnout was over 99.8%.
As a result, zero candidates have ever been voted down.
That's absurd. This claim alone should make anyone distrust North Korean government media.
Yet here's KCNA making that claim for the elections of 1990, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2015, and 2019:
There are 12 screenshots from KCNA below here. If you wish to skip them, start scrolling here!
KCNA 2019 SPA: 687 Democratic Front seats, 99.99% turnout, 100% of ballots cast for Democratic Front candidates:
KCNA 2019 local: 99.98% turnout, 27876 deputies elected, "and voted for the candidates for deputies" (implied 100%, but not explicit):
KCNA 2015 local: 99.97% turnout, 28452 deputies elected, "and voted for the candidates for deputies" (implied 100%, but not explicit):
KCNA 2014 SPA: 686 Democratic Front seats, 99.97% turnout, 100% of ballots cast for Democratic Front candidates:
KCNA 2011 local: 99.97% turnout, 28116 deputies elected, "and voted for the candidates for deputies" (implied 100%, but not explicit):
KCNA 2009 SPA: 687 Democratic Front seats, 99.98% turnout, 100% of ballots cast for Democratic Front candidates:
KCNA 2007 local: 99.82% turnout, 27390 deputies elected, 100% of ballots cast for Democratic Front candidates:
KCNA 2003 local: 99.9% turnout, 26650 deputies elected, 100% of ballots cast for Democratic Front candidates:
KCNA 2003 SPA: 687 Democratic Front seats, 99.9% turnout, 100% of ballots cast for Democratic Front candidates:
KCNA 1999 local: 99.9% turnout, 100% of ballots cast for Democratic Front candidates:
KCNA 1998 SPA: 687 Democratic Front seats, 99.85% turnout, 100% of ballots cast for Democratic Front candidates:
The KCNA screenshots end here.
How do we know which parties win elections?
This question is more difficult than it might seem: Unlike nearly every democracy to ever exist, North Korea's government does not regularly release election results with a breakdown by party (or by other demographics). Nor does any other body, such as the Central Electoral Committee or government media.
As such, virtually all estimates of the partisan breakdown of elections before 1990 -- including those cited by defenders of North Korea -- ultimately come from Nohlen Grotz Hartmann 2001, an anti-communist Western source. Here's how they describe the situation:
North Korea is one of the worst-known and least accessible states in the world. Official statistics on elections including absolute numbers of registered voters, votes cast and yes/no-votes have never been published. The only statistical information obtained were the election dates, the names of the (uncontested) candidates, the number of electoral districts as well as the percentages of turnout and yes-votes. Furthermore, the composition of Parliament could be documented according to the main organizational affiliation of the candidates. The materials used in this study are primarily from South Korean and US intelligence sources.
Unfortunately, they're right. If you search KCNA, Rodong Sinmun, Choson Sinbo, or any other North Korean government media, you can't find election results broken down in any detail.
In particular, number of seats by party is never published. (The % turnout and % of votes for the Democratic front is always reported, as shown above.) If the organizational affiliations of candidates are not known, it's impossible to know which parties took which seats.
As a result, for 1 in 3 North Korean elections -- 1977, 1982, 1988, 2003, and 2019 (that's 6 of 17 total) -- we have no idea how many seats each party won.
This void of information of electoral outcomes should give you an idea of how truly little North Korean parties matter.
Which parties have won elections since 1990?
Hope is not lost for examining North Korean party performance: Since 1990, North Korea has provided partial information on 4 of 6 elections to the Inter-Parliamentary Union and/or the United Nations. The IPU's Parline website collects this data.
The graph below shows all North Korean election results from 1990 to 2019, as recorded by the IPU:
These election results are obvious bullshit.
One of the obvious features -- and obviously bullshit features -- is the stability of the WPK over time. The WPK always receives nearly exactly 87% of the vote: 87.4% in 1990, 86.4% in 1998, 88.2% in 2009, and 88.4% in 2014.
If you've ever tried to get 99.8% of leftists to agree on anything, you know it's impossible. Any socialism worth fighting for is dynamic, where competing socialist visions should rise & fall from power.
A country where 99.8% of socialists pick the exact same political parties in the exact same rates for 30 years is absurd.
Here's my sources, all taken from the IPU:
There are 4 screenshots from the IPU below here. If you wish to skip them, start scrolling here!
IPU 2019: 687 Democratic Front seats (no breakdown): turnout 99.9%
IPU 2014: 607 WPK seats; 50 KSDP seats; 22 Chondoist seats; 8 independent seats; turnout 99.97%
IPU 2009: 606 WPK seats; 50 KSDP seats; 22 Chondoist seats; 3 independent seats; 6 Korean Residents in Japan seats; turnout 99.98%
IPU 2003: 687 Democratic Front seats (no breakdown); turnout 99.9%
IPU 1998: 601 WPK seats; 52 KSDP seats; 24 Chondoist seats; 10 independent seats; turnout 99.85%:
IPU 1990 601 WPK seats; 51 KSDP seats; 22 Chondoist seats; 13 independent seats; turnout 99.87%:
The IPU screenshots end here.
Which parties have won elections since 1948?
The graph below shows all North Korean election results from 1948 to 2019:
Two notes:
The 1948-1986 portion of this graph relies on Nohlen Grotz Hartmann 2001, which is a Western anti-communist source, and that that source relies "primarily" on "South Korean and US intelligence sources". When supporters of North Korea cite election results before 1990, they are almost certainly indirectly citing Nohlen Grotz Hartmann 2001.
This graph treats "unidentified" candidates as members of the WPK, because the WPK reported that it received 96.9% of seats in 1962, and because this yields results similar to their performance in prior and later elections. This only affects the elections of 1967 (156 unidentified) and 1972 (401 unidentified).
In short: Since 1990, North Korean media reports that over 99.8% of the country turned out and 100% of the country voted to support the Democratic Front in every election. Since 1990, the Korean Worker's Party has received 86-88% of the vote in every election.
The official results of the North Korean electoral system bode even more poorly for the "democratic view". Getting 99.8% of leftists -- let alone 99.8% of the general public -- to agree on anything is impossible. To do it every election from 1990 to 2019 is even more impossible. You should automatically distrust any government which claims to accomplish such a feat.
It gets worse.
Background, part 3: Do North Korean parties have meaningful power?
No.
This section will discuss whether different political parties have competing visions and meaningful power over North Korean policy. If yes, they could be a vessel for democratic politics. If no, they cannot.
Defenders of North Korea sometimes point to the fact that North Korea has multiple parties to prove that it is a democracy.
For example, this recent post got 500 likes:
For another example, eshaLegal (29.5k followers on @eshaLegal, 28.5k on @historic_ly) TikTok'd that: "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea has more political parties than the United States"
It is technically true that North Korea has a multiparty electoral system. However, to imply that these smaller parties exercise any meaningful power over policy is absurd, for several reasons:
As shown above, the WPK has had a supermajority >80% of seats since the 1940's. Even if all non-WPK representatives formed an opposition, the WPK could always overrule them.
As shown above, there's been no real change in party seats in the last 60 years. This suggests that voters have little ability to choose between parties.
As shown above, the constitution of North Korea sets the WPK as its ruling party.
Beyond that, there's little reason to believe parties have any independent influence on policy. Again, we can look to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) for proof. Parties other than the WPK are only rarely mentioned by KCNA. Virtually all such mentions are flattering praise of Kim Jong-Un or the WPK.
If you search KCNA archives for "사회민주당" -- the Korean Social Democratic Party (KSDP), which allegedly gets gets 7% of the vote and 7% of the seats -- there are just 75 mentions in the 6 years between 6 January 2022 (Juche 111) and 2 September 2015 (Juche 104). (For comparison: NPR mentions "Gary Johnson" 335 times. Johnson received 3.3% of the vote in 2016.)
To make it even worse, dozens of the KCNA articles merely mention foreign social democratic parties attending an event -- example 1, 2 -- or merely list a member of the KSDP among several participants at an event -- example 1, 2, 3.
In short, KCNA actually reports on the KSDP maybe ~5 times per year -- very few, for a party getting 7% of the vote! Even worse, virtually all of the substantive coverage of the KSDP is their representatives fawning over the WPK and Kim Jong-Un:
2016, speech by Kim Yong-dae, Chairman of the KSDP (Kor fulltext, Kor summary, Eng summary): the KSDP praises Kim Jong-Un for his leadership:
All the members of the Social Democratic Party of Korea have unwavering faith and determination that there is nothing to be afraid of or impossible in this world because the respected Marshal Kim Jong-Un, the supreme incarnation of patriotism and the great constituent of the country's reunification, is present. We will join hands with the armed forces and fight more vigorously in the struggle to build the world's most powerful country.
2018, "Plenary Meeting of Central Committee of the KSDP Held" (Kor, Eng): the KSDP praises the WPK for their leadership:
Noting that the ardent appeal of the WPK calling upon all the people across the country to launch an offensive for making a breakthrough head-on boundlessly stirs up the hearts of all the members of the KSDP who are contributing to accomplishing the cause of independence of the Korean nation and mankind on the basis of the political idea on independence, they expressed their resolutions to fulfill the responsibility and duty as the friendly party of the WPK by unsparingly devoting patriotic enthusiasm and creative wisdom to the grand march of self-reliance for hastening the far-reaching ambition and ideal for building a powerful socialist country.
2021, "Congratulatory Banners Sent to Eighth Congress of WPK" (Kor, Eng): the KSDP praises Kim Jong-Un and the WPK for their leadership:
The friendly parties in their congratulatory banners extended the highest glory and warmest congratulations to Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un who is leading the cause of the ever-victorious WPK along the road of victory and glory with his outstanding and seasoned leadership on the occasion of the glorious 8th Congress of the WPK.
The messages above are cult-like. They should make you sick. No real-world leader deserves insanely one-sided praise like this.
If you search KCNA archives for 천도교청우당 -- the Chondoist Chongu Party, the 3rd-largest party -- you get reporting that's no less sycophantic:
2021, "Foundation Day of Korea Marked" (Kor, Eng): the Chondoist Chongu Party praises Kim Jong-Un for his leadership:
Ri Myong Chol, chairman of the Central Committee of the Chondoist Chongu Party, made a report. He highly praised the patriotic exploits of President Kim Il Sung and Chairman Kim Jong Il who founded the ancestral father of the Korean nation and demonstrated the excellence of the nation far and wide.
He referred to the fact that the dignity and prestige of our socialist state have been put on the highest level and the new era of self-respect and prosperity and the era of our state-first principle unprecedented in the nation's history spanning 5 000 years has opened on this land thanks to the respected Comrade Kim Jong Un possessed of rare wisdom and outstanding political caliber.
Again, this praise is cult-like. Real parties with real power don't (and shouldn't) praise their electoral partners like this.
In searching the KCNA's archives, I couldn't find a single example of either the KSDP or Chondoist Chongu Party arguing for any specific policies -- much less a specific policy that the WPK would disagree with. If you're a defender of North Korea, feel free to prove me wrong: Show us a KCNA article in which the KSDP or Chondoist Chongu Party advocates against a WPK policy.
Government media gives us no reason to believe that North Korea's smaller parties have any meaningful power over policy -- or even that they ever meaningfully disagree with the WPK on policy. North Korea is technically a multiparty system, but is not meaningfully a multiparty system.
In short: North Korea is technically not a single-party system. North Korea is a single-coalition system controlled by a single party. There's little real difference between the two. This supports the "rubber-stamp" view.
It gets worse.
As a section endnote: South Korea routinely bans parties sympathetic to North Korea -- such as the Progressive Party (1958), the United Socialist Party of Korea (1961), the New Democratic Party (1980), the United Progressive Party (2014) -- and some party-like front groups for North Korea -- such as the Reunification Revolutionary Party (1968), the Anti-Imperialist National Democratic Front (1968). This is a clear violation of freedom of association.
Similarly, South Korea's National Security Act, enacted in 1948, causes dozens of arrests of South Korean civilians for making anti-capitalist statements. This is a clear violation of freedom of speech, and Amnesty International has repeatedly urged South Korea to abolish the law.
Democratic states should not ban parties or publishers for anything short of threatening democracy itself or causing mass violence.
Background, part 4: Do North Korean voters' meetings have meaningful power?
No.
This section will discuss whether voters' meetings allow for real choice between candidates of differing ideology, which might give them meaningful power over North Korean policy. If yes, they could be a vessel for democratic politics. If no, they cannot.
Defenders of North Korea rarely defend it as a multiparty parliamentary democracy. Instead, they argue that it's those "mass meetings" that hold the key to North Korea's democracy -- after all, Li mentioned "meetings in the workplace or similar" where the electors "considered" candidates.
(Note: Vanguardists usually label the meetings as "mass meetings", while North Korean government media officially translates "선거자회의들" as "voters' meetings". The label doesn't really matter.)
For example, the vanguardist writer Write To Rebel (4.3k followers) wrote a blogpost article titled "Socialism and Democracy in the DPRK" (2017, archive.is link), which seems to be the most widely cited defense of North Korea as a democracy. Among other claims, Write to Rebel's (WTR's) blogpost argues that voters' meetings ("mass meetings") are deeply democratic institutions and superior to parliamentary democratic methods:
Candidates are chosen in mass meetings held under the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, which also organizes the political parties in the DPRK. [....]
The fact that there is only one candidate on the ballot is because there has already been a consensus reached on who should be up for nomination for that position, by the people in their mass meetings. This is a truly democratic arrangement, as it places power directly in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of wealthy “representatives” who have no idea how the majority actually live. [....]
The mass meetings require input from the popular masses, so they are not secret, nor should they be, since this would impede the democratic process and make it more difficult for the deputies to directly address the needs and demands of the people. They are more than votes and ballots, they are meetings where the people are given a voice and the power to impact their political system in a meaningful way. [....]
The DPRK displays extensive political stability and I know of no instances of the candidates chosen by the people being rebuked by any part of the democratic process. The elections are effectively a fail-safe against any corruption of the democratic process that occurs during the mass meetings. The results are therefore expected to show overwhelming support because a no-vote indicates the mass meetings failed to reach a consensus with popular support [5].
That's a ringing endorsement of voters' meetings as the true powerhouse of North Korean democracy! Surely, the single citation upon which all of these claims rest -- citation 5 -- will be so persuasive, so untouchable, that any observer would be convinced!
[citation 5] https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=-4P0dMEH4RQ
That link would've gone to a video by StimmeKoreas ["Voice of Korea"], which simply uploaded North Korean government broadcasts:
The video in question, titled "North Korean report on 2014 Elections in English", is no longer available -- but I've uploaded a permanent copy for you to watch. I've included a full transcript below -- but before you do, you should know that it doesn't mention "voters' meetings" or "mass meetings" even once!
March 9th, Juche 103 (or 2014), is the day for the election of the deputies to the 13th Supreme People's Assembly of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The flags of the Republic are flying in the streets and the villages, and the polling stations are in a festive mood, with colorful performances and merry dance. The Korean people have experienced, through their life, the gratitude for the government of the Republic, which makes them full-fledged masters of the country, and guarantees their happiness. That is why they their faces at the polling stations are so bright.
[interviewing a voter] "This is the first time that I take part in the election. In the election I feel that best is our socialist system in which an ordinary worker is an elected deputy."
[interviewing a voter] "Look. Today an ordinary worker like me, a woman worker was elected a deputy to the SPA. I deeply feel that our society is the best."
The Korean people have enjoyed a worthwhile life under the benefits of the state power, consisting of faithful servants for the people, elected according to their will and demand. So all the citizens of the Republic are casting ballots for the representatives of the people, loyal to the country and people. Representing their pure loyalty and resolve to absolutely believe and firmly consolidate the people's power, which is entirely responsible for their destiny forever.
[interviewing a voter] "Today I have participated in the election of deputies to the SPA and cast a ballot to firmly consolidate our revolutionary power. Keeping today's honor and pride deep in my heart, I will make great achievements in education of rising generations and scientific researchers, true to the plan of the respected Kim Jong Un on the building of a thriving nation."
[outro]
Observant reader, you may have noticed that the above video doesn't mention mass meetings. Nor does it discuss their function whatsoever.
It does say that the elected assemblymembers represent "their pure loyalty" to "absolutely believe and firmly consolidate the people's power, which is entirely responsible for their destiny forever." That would be cool, if it were true!
In fact, among all eight relevant citations in WTR's blogpost above, just one document mentions voters' meetings -- and it's that same 1991 Inter-Parliamentary Union speech where Li tells us that "it was the practice for all candidates to be nominated by the parties":
Beyond the failure to cite any concrete evidence, many of WTR's claims are absurd. For example, WTR writes that:
The results [of the general election] are therefore expected to show overwhelming support because a no-vote indicates the mass meetings failed to reach a consensus with popular support.
I don't understand how anyone can believe this. Let's look at four reasons why.
Reason 1: Reaching 100% consensus is virtually impossible.
North Korean government media asserts that 100% of candidates have won 100% of the vote (and >99.8% of the public) in every election since 1990.
If you've ever tried to get >90% of committed leftists to agree on anything remotely controversial, you know it's impossible. Hell, if you know leftists, you'd get a good 10% voting no just to signal minor disapproval. There cannot be a consensus system that gets 100% of people on board.
If you think otherwise, try getting 100% of your local socialist org -- DSA, SPUSA, SRA, CPUSA, whatever -- to agree on anything of any real substance and any real controversy. Now try doing that in every single election across a country for 30 years.
But it gets worse: If people had real power, we'd expect to see different political groups rise and fall -- as they do in every system with partial democracy. Does that happen in North Korea?
There's been nearly zero change in parties in the Supreme People's Assembly over the past 32 years. We would have to assume that that voters keep picking exactly the same party -- within 2% every election -- freely of their own choice.
This is absurd.
Reason 2: Remarkably few candidates are re-elected in each district.
If the people elected by voters' meetings are so popular, we'd expect them to be routinely re-elected in those positions. Surely a trusted comrade in (Election #X) is a trusted comrade in (Election #X+1) -- and they just got 100% of the votes!
This is not the case.
Every election, KCNA publishes a list of all 687 people elected to the Supreme People's Assembly (SPA) by district number. In both 2014 and 2019, KCNA also gave ward names for each ward number. Here's what the top of the 2014 electeds list looked like -- the format is (ward #) (ward name) (candidate name), example "제1호 만경대선거구 박정남":
From this, we can calculate how many people were re-elected -- and, crucially, re-elected to the same district. If candidates were truly near-unanimously loved representatives of the people, we should expect high rates of re-election -- and we should rarely see people re-elected in different wards.
I've posted my data on Google Sheets here. Here are direct links for each election's list:
2019 SPA: Rodong Sinmun + Tongil News transcription (partially manually corrected)
First: I check whether any districts in 2014 and 2019 had the same name, shown in ward_matches_2014. 657 of 687 did, or 94.9%. This suggests that few districts were redistricted (moved to a new geographical area). Many of the 30 districts remaining differ by just one jamo (letter), but in case they represent real redistricting, I exclude them. This gives a maximum possible 657 candidates re-elected in the same district.
Second: I check whether any candidates in 2014 and 2019 had the same name, shown in name_matches_2014. 700 of 1374 did, or 50.9%. This suggests that most candidates are re-elected, but only a slight majority. (Korean surnames are very concentrated, so a few of the candidates may share the same name but be different people.)
Third: I determine whether a candidate in 2014 was re-elected in 2019 in the same district with the following checks:
name_ward_matches_2014: The same candidate name and ward name
name_num_matches_2014: The same candidate name and ward #
name_num_pm10_matches_2014: The same candidate name and a ward # within plus/minus 10 of their previous ward # (ex, moving from 21 -> 30 is within 10)
Result: Of 657 possible candidates re-elected in the same district, just 163 actually were -- or 24.8%. Here's a graphical summary:
Why am I bothering with all these details? Because the candidate re-election rate is 53.9%, while the same-district candidate re-election rate is 24.7%. Roughly 1 in 2 candidate re-elections in 2019 were in a different ward than the ward they were elected in in 2014.
That's really odd if we think that voters' meetings are direct connections between the people and a trusted comrade. Just 1 in 4 voters' meetings select the same candidate from one meeting to the next -- and just 1 in 2 candidates are re-selected -- despite the North Korean government claiming that 100% of those voters supported that candidate in the general election. Or: Why are so many candidates hopping districts?
But it's not so odd if we trust Li's statement to the IPU. Li tells us that that the Democratic Front nominates all candidates and that the Central Election Committee allocates them to each district. Many candidates don't truly represent the people of their ward -- they're just assigned that seat by the Democratic Front.
Reason 3: North Korean government media rarely mentions voters' meetings.
If we search the Korean archives, "선거자회의들" [Voters' meetings] has just 9 mentions since 2015 (Juche 104). If we search the English archives, "voters meetings" has just 12 mentions since 2014 (Juche 103). (KCNA translates almost every article from Korean into English.) That's roughly 1 mention per year -- nearly nothing!
Nearly all these mentions give zero details about the voters' meetings. Here's two examples of the extremely brief passing mentions of voters' meetings:
2014, "Rodong Sinmun Calls for Greeting Election of Deputies to SPA with High Political Enthusiasm and Labor Achievements" (Kor, Eng):
At the voters' meetings at all constituencies of the country for the nomination of candidate for deputy to the 13th SPA, all the voters nominated supreme leader Kim Jong Un as the candidate in reflection of their determination and will to entrust their destiny and future entirely to the Workers' Party of Korea and remain true to its leadership with loyalty.
All the voters "entrust their destiny and future entirely to the Workers' Party of Korea". Totally normal thing to say.
2014, "Kim Jong Un Sends Open Letter to Voters throughout Country" (Kor, Eng):
Supreme leader Kim Jong Un sent an open letter to all voters throughout the country on Tuesday. The following is the full text of the open letter: [....]
The voters' meetings held in all constituencies of the country for the nomination of candidates for the posts of deputies to the 13th Supreme People's Assembly nominated me, in reflection of their determination and will to entrust their destiny and future entirely to the Workers' Party of Korea and support its leadership with loyalty, as candidate for the post of deputy to the 13th Supreme People's Assembly. I keenly felt the steel-strong faith and will of our service personnel and people to place their absolute trust in the Party and follow it to the last, and was greatly encouraged by it.
Absolutely. Super normal thing to say, Mr. Kim.
Even the full 2014 article, "Report of DPRK Association for Human Rights Studies" (Kor, Eng), which is an attempt by the North Korean government to prove that it is democratic, mentions voters "nominating" candidates just twice, and neither in detail:
The candidates are nominated by the voters themselves or by a political party and social organization jointly or independently. Soon after the results of the voting are confirmed (by opening the ballot boxes and counting the ballots), the elected deputies to the Supreme People’s Assembly are announced by the Central Election Committee, those to the provincial (municipal) people’s assemblies by relevant provincial (municipal) election committees and those to the city (district) and county people’s assemblies by the relevant city (district) and county election committees.
Currently in the DPRK, 100 % of the voters cast their ballots for the nominated candidates for deputies to the people’s assemblies. This has long been quite usual in the DPRK. The main reason behind the unanimous support for the candidates is that the voters themselves have nominated as candidates the working people including workers, farmers and intellectuals who have worked with devotion for the independent rights and interests of the voters.
(The claim that candidates are "working people" explains why they receive "unanimous support" is absurd.)
There is exactly one mentions of "voters' meetings" in KCNA that give any details on them whatsoever: This brief 2014 article, "Meetings of Voters Held to Nominate Candidates for Deputies to Local Assemblies" (Kor, Eng), which explains that voters have North Korean election law explained and "heard speeches on the qualifications of the candidates for deputies":
Meetings of voters for nominating candidates for deputies to provincial (municipal), city (district) and county people's assemblies and examining their qualifications took place in the DPRK. Reports were made at the meetings. Explained at the meetings was the Law on the Elections of Deputies to the People's Assemblies at All Levels. Nominated there were officials, workers, farmers and intellectuals as candidates for deputies to the above-said people's assemblies. The participants heard speeches on the qualifications of the candidates for deputies.
That article above is the most detail that KCNA ever provides about voters' meetings.
The scant information available suggests that voters' meetings merely examine the "qualifications" of candidates as [1] servants of the people and [2] loyal party members. There's no discussion of multiple candidates -- let alone the debate necessary to choose between them on ideological or political grounds!
The simplest interpretation of these articles lines up with what Li said to the IPU in 1991: The Democratic Front has already "nominated" a candidate, which local voters merely "consider" in a voters' meeting, to determine their "qualifications":
That interpretation also means that voters' meetings have no real power.
In short: There is no reason to believe that voters' meetings exercise meaningful political power in North Korea. The media rarely mentions them. Their candidates are rarely re-elected. They cause no change in political representation over time. This supports the "rubber-stamp" view.
How well do Hakim's arguments that North Korea is democratic fare?
Poorly.
I want to open this section with a charitable note: Hakim spent just two minutes arguing that North Korea is democratic in a larger video on North Korea. Two minutes is not enough space to flesh out a strong argument for anything. I want to give Hakim the charity of acknowledging that. I've frontloaded you with 30 minutes worth of information -- Hakim's arguments don't have that luxury.
The following is a full transcription from 11:45 to 13:28 of "What If North Korea was a Democracy?" (2022) by Hakim, with my commentary inbetween.
Hakim opens discussion of North Korean democracy as follows:
Regardless, and here's the bit that's controversial, and shouldn't be: The DPRK has a fairly decently functioning model of proletarian democracy, not too dissimilar from Cuba.
If this comparison is true, then this should make you trust Cuba's electoral system less.
Next, Hakim mentions Li's speech to the IPU -- the same speech that I've repeatedly cited above:
If you really are skeptical, don't take my word for it, but of the Swiss Inter-Parliamentary Union, which published among other things, the driest possible bulletin and minute report of a 1992 session in the DPRK, which had some Q&A section from parliament members all over the world.
Hakim does not read directly from the IPU document. That's unfortunate, because it provides no support for what Hakim says about "mass meetings".
Hakim continues:
Candidates are chosen in mass meetings held under a Democratic Front government, which also organizes the various political parties in the DPRK.
I've discussed these mass meetings in depth above. In short: There is no reason to believe voters' meetings have any real impact on political representation. Also:
Above is the pic shown when Hakim explains what a mass meeting is. Given the speech above, one could assume it's a mass meeting selecting Kim Jong-Un. In reality, it's Kim giving a speech to open the 8th Party Congress on 2021 January 05 (a non-election year).
Hakim continues:
The system is essentially tiered. In which people volunteer themselves or are volunteered by others for a position, a vote is taken at the mass meeting -- which anyone can attend -- and afterwards, there is a confidence vote, in which the person is subject to a yes/no choice by the greater public, so a larger subset than those at the meetings.
Above is the pic shown when Hakim explains how people are selected within a mass meeting. Given the speech above, one could assume this is a diagram of the inner workings of a mass meeting. In reality, it's a diagram of the power structure of the 7th Party Congress.
Hakim correctly notes the elections put a candidate to a vote by "a larger subset than those at the meetings". But Hakim never mentions that candidates always receive 100% of the vote. Since voters' meetings include very few people, we should expect at least a nonzero amount of dissent from the general public -- yet, according to KCNA election reports, it never occurs:
Hakim continues:
This is reproduced at various levels in the DPRK. Equally, there's an active democratic process in running enterprises in the DPRK according to the Taean cooperative system of workplace management, but this video is dragging on long enough.
The Taean work system theoretically incorporates factory workers into factory management, somewhere between codetermination (among workers and central planners / the Democratic Front) and worker cooperatives. Insofar as the Taean system exists, it's probably a good thing!
Unfortunately, North Korea has not released any useful economic statistics since 1990. Kim Kim Lee 2007 write that "the release of ... fragmentary [output] data came almost to a complete halt in 1990 and no data were provided afterwards":
Sadly, it is nearly impossible to examine the Taean system in any detail. We don't know how many firms are Taean, cooperative, or nationalized. We don't know what systems North Korean workers prefer. We don't know if these systems give them real control over production.
Hakim concludes:
What does this teach us? That there is some democratic process within the DPRK, and that it is different than in liberal democracies. Is it perfect? Is it all-pervasive? Blah, blah -- these are questions outside the point currently, but all relevant for a future discussion.
The fact that elections and voters' meetings occur in North Korea does not mean those elections or voters' meetings have real democratic control. Many non-democracies use the appearance of democracy to downplay their authoritarian structure. For example, in Fascist Italy's 1934 general election, fascists won 99.8% of the vote.
In short: Hakim presents no compelling evidence to think that North Korea is a democracy.
Before we discuss why it matters that North Korea is not a democracy, I want to refute two of the more absurd defenses of North Korea as a democracy.
Bullshit #1: Do North Korean elections have multiple candidates?
No.
Some defenders of North Korea claim elections have more than one candidate each.
For example, KPR_Eng tweeted: "Is there only one candidate per district? No, this photo shows during the weeks of elections, people reading about their candidates."
This claim seems to originate from a 2014 blogpost titled "La democracia popular de Corea del Norte" ["People's Democracy in North Korea"], on a blog titled "De Pyongyana a la Habana" ["From Pyongyang to Havana"], written by Fekerfanta (37.9k followers). That blogpost also uses this photo to claim that districts have multiple candidates:
¿Hay solo un candidato por circunscripción? [Is there only one candidate per constituency?]
No.
En cada circunscripción se pueden presentar uno, dos o varios candidatos. Por ejemplo, en esta imagen vemos un distrito en donde se presentaba más de un candidato: Además hay muchos más candidatos por cada distrito, pues las elecciones en Corea del Norte empiezan varias semanas antes al día de las votaciones. De eso se hablará más adelante en esta misma entrada.
[In each constituency one, two or several candidates can present themselves. For example, in this image we see a district where more than one candidate was running: In addition, there are many more candidates for each district, since the elections in North Korea begin several weeks before the day of the votes. That will be discussed later in this post.]
When you Reverse Image Search that picture, you'll find this 2018 blogost, which uses the picture to claim that voters receive one ballot and one candidate per assembly. For example, if you were electing your county council, your provincial council, and the Supreme People's Assembly, you'd get three ballots, each with one candidate:
[I]n local elections two or three candidates are voted for at the same time, one per assembly (district, municipal, and in some areas also provincial). Instead of one ballot paper, therefore, voters receive two or three, one per candidate."""
However, that blog is named "Corea Del Norte Libre" ("Free North Korea"). Is this claim an imperialist lie?
No. That blog links back to a 2011 source video (web.archive.org timestamp of the 2011 local elections, uploaded by StimmeKoreas ("True Korea"). That channel which no longer exists, so the video is inaccessible. However, a copy was uploaded by KCNA Uploader (archive.is link, permanent copy) in 2012.
You can see the picture cited at 0:45-0:50. More usefully, you can see a full-size shot of the posters from 0:40-0:45:
It's very grainy, but the text seems to read:
알 림
조선민주주의인민공화국 [candidate ward name: 평양시 or 양시 청천구역]
인민회의 매치된성거를 위한 제 [candidate ward number: 57 or 93] 호선거구에 등록된 대의원후보자
[candidate picture]
이름 [candidate name: 김성운 or 김상히]
직장자리 평양 325 공장?? [candidate title: 지사장 / 지장장]
조선민주주의인민공화국 [candidate ward name: 평양시 or 양시 청천구역]
인민회의 대의원선거를 위한 제 [candidate ward number: 57 or 93] 호구선거위원회
주체 100 (2011) 년 7 월 24 일
In English:
Notice
Democratic People's Republic of Korea [candidate ward name: Pyongyang City or Yangsi Chongcheon District]
Candidate candidates registered in the constituency [candidate ward number: 57 or 93] for the election of the People's Assembly
[candidate picture]
Name [candidate name: Seongwoon Kim or Sanghi Kim]
Workplace Pyongyang 325 Factory [candidate title: Branch Manager / Branch Manager]
Democratic People's Republic of Korea [candidate ward name: Pyongyang City or Yangsi Chongcheon District]
Deputy Election District [candidate ward number: 57 or 93] Election Commission for People's Assembly
Juche 100 (2011) July 24
As the election notice text makes clear, these aren't two candidates competing for the same position, they're two candidates running unopposed for different wards.
KCNA also published an article titled "Candidate for Election Vows to Faithfully Serve for People", which mentions that the election is "sub-constituency No. 93 of Constituency No. 57 in Pyongyang", which lines up with the above. It also includes this totally normal comment:
Kim Yong, chairman of the election committee, told KCNA that the election is of weighty significance as it is being held when all the Korean people have turned out in the effort for glorifying the hundred-year history of Kim Il Sung's Korea.
In short: No, the fact that North Korean elections have multiple candidate notices does not mean that those candidates are both competing for the same seat. In reality, they are both being elected to separate seats, usually one provincial seat and one county seat.
Bullshit #2: Do North Korean voters receive two ballots, one for yes and one for no?
No.
Defenders of North Korea sometimes claim that North Korean residents receive two ballots, one to vote "yes" and one to vote "no".
For example, KPR_Eng tweeted: "Is the vote secret? Yes. Each person that wile vote receives two ballots per candidate, one with “yes” and one with “no”, to approve or reject candidates running in that district."
Again, this claim seems to originate from that 2014 blogpost titled "La democracia popular de Corea del Norte". That post also uses this photo to claim that voters receive multiple ballots:
¿El voto es secreto? Sí. A cada votante se le proporciona dos papeletas por candidato, una con un "sí" y otra con un "no", para aprobar o no al candidato (o candidatos) que se presentan en dicho distrito.
[Is the vote secret? Yes. Each voter is provided two ballots per candidate, one with a "yes" and one with a "no", to approve or not approve the candidate (or candidates) running in that district.]
The picture in question is taken from a 2019 article in Tongil Voice, a North Korean radio station, which gives the picture no accompanying text:
Funnily enough, I cited this same photo near the beginning of this blogpost to show what the back of North Korean ballots look like. Observant readers will note that the person above has two differently-colored ballots: One green, one blue. As mentioned above, green ballots are county / city assembly ballots, blue ballots are provincial assembly ballots.
Each ballot is a "yes" vote for one candidate, but each candidate is running for a different level of governance.
Aside: It's contradictory to believe bullshit #1 and bullshit #2 at the same time. You can't argue that [each of the two ballots are for two different candidates] AND [one is yes, one is no for the single candidate].
In short: Every North Korean ballot is for one candidate. When North Koreans receive multiple ballots, it's because they're electing multiple candidates in one election, not because they're getting a "yes" and "no" ballot.
Why does it matter?
North Korea is not a democracy. So what?
Here's four reasons why it matters.
Why it matters, reason 1: Truth matters.
This is the simplest reason: It's good to pursue truth.
The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that North Korea is not a democracy. Socialists can and should acknowledge that, just as easily as they acknowledge that the US supported Syngman Rhee, a strongman dictator who committed several massacres, and just as easily as they acknowledge that the Korean War killed around 15% of North Korean people largely due to the 630,000 tons of bombs dropped by the United States. Socialists should never fear the truth.
Why it matters, reason 2: Building socialism.
Those who portray North Korea as a vibrant socialist democracy hurt the cause of socialism. It's so obviously false that it makes you look insane for promoting it.
Anyone who reads North Korean government media can see that it's false -- the news bolds the names of the Kim leadership, the news dates events from the birthday of Kim Il-Sung, the news fawns over Kim Jong-Un's every move.
North Korea is notorious for its stagnant hereditary autocracy, strict control of information, and impoverished economy. Its lack of economic growth is so dramatic that it can, indeed, be easily seen from space.
Tying socialism to North Korea, an impoverished country ruled by an authoritarian government, hurts the socialist movement. In general, trying to defend or deny red authoritarianism hurts socialists.
Socialists should emphasize the successes of socialism, not its failures. Emphasize how socialists fought and fight to expand democratic rights, how effective socialist policies can be in healthcare, housing, & elsewhere, and how meaningful democracy requires socialist equality.
If you want to highlight US war crimes against North Korea, more power to you! Don't tie socialism to North Korea.
Why it matters, reason 3: Inhumane sanctions.
Sanctions on North Korea have not harmed the North Korean government, but they seriously harm the North Korean people.
Sanctions on North Korea have demolished their international trade. The USD value of trade by North Korea was lower in 2021 than any year in memory:
That's a combination of sanctions led by the United States and COVID-19 import restrictions by North Korea.
In 2019, the pro-Western source of Korea Times reported that new United Nations sanctions in 2017-18 on coal, iron, and textiles reduced exports of those by nearly 100%:
Resolution 2371, which took effect in August 2017, bans U.N. member nations from importing North Korean coal, iron ore and seafood. Resolution 2375, which came into force a month later, bans purchasing textiles from North Korea and selling natural gas condensates and liquids to the regime. Resolution 2397 in December also bans selling industrial machinery and vessels. Because coal, iron ore and textiles are North Korea's main export items, their drop of almost 100 percent led to the plunge in exports, KOTRA said. The North's exports of mineral fuel and oil dropped by 96.9 percent and textiles fell 99.5 percent.
In 2021, the pro-Western source Human Rights Watch reported that food imports had dramatically declined in 2020 due to North Korean COVID-19 import restrictions:
"There is barely any food going into the country from China for almost two months now," a missionary who clandestinely helps people in need inside North Korea told me last September. "There are so many more beggars, some people died from hunger in the border area and there’s no soap, toothpaste, or batteries." [....]
Trade with China in 2020 decreased by almost 81 percent, which came after already enormous drops in 2018, after the United Nations anti-weapons proliferation sanctions were expanded. The government dramatically reduced imports of staple foods and other necessities from China in August and stopped almost all imports, including all food and medicine, in October[.]
The food situation is so bad that Kim Jong-Un -- who rarely highlights policy failures -- emphasized food scarcity while speaking to the WPK Central Committee in June 2022:
[T]he people's food situation is now getting tense as the agricultural sector failed to fulfill its grain production plan due to the damage by typhoon last year, he stressed that the plenary meeting should take a positive measure for settling the problem.
At the same time, sanctions have not deposed the North Korean government or stopped its nuclear weapons program. When you understand how centralized and undemocratic the North Korean government is, this makes sense. The North Korean government is not under immense pressure from its people, who will punish their government for rising prices. Economic sanctions on North Korea will not work.
The anti-imperialist line on North Korea is not that North Korea is a secretive People's Utopia.
The anti-imperialist line on North Korea is opposition to these broad economic sanctions. These sanctions clearly aren't stopping the NK government's nuclear program or authoritarianism. But they are hurting millions of North Koreans. The sanctions on North Korea are inhumane, and you should oppose them.
Why it matters, reason 4: Misinformation in vanguardist spaces.
The claim that "North Korea is democratic" is common among vanguardist spaces, including its popular pundits and its viral memes. Most vanguardist socialists of any significance have explicitly defended North Korea as democratic.
Here's a dozen examples:
There are a bunch of screenshots from vanguardists below here. If you wish to skip them, start scrolling here!
Juche_Gang (11.5k followers) tweeted: North Korea has "Democratic control over all levels of society" (3.1k likes)
stopTHAAD (18.9k followers) tweeted: "there’s people that think the US is more democratic than the DPRK..? imagine being that dense lol" (600 likes)
joeywreck (38.2k followers) tweeted: "“nOrTh KoReA iS a DiCtAtOrShIp 🤡”" (170 likes)
MarxIsMyN***a (25.1k followers) tweeted: "Normalize accepting that the DPRK is much more democratic than the United States, even if you think of yourself as anti-DPRK." (1.1k likes)
Yeongno3 (24.3k followers) tweeted: "If there's no multiparty elections, how does non-worker's parties members obtain seats and how does the distribution change between elections?" (100 likes)
SpookySocialist (51.6k subs, 20.1k followers) tweeted: "“Cuba isn’t a democracy because a democracy has multiple parties.” Based on that definition, is North Korea a democracy because it has multiple parties? “No, because they’re still for the same regime even when they’re voting different parties.” America: sweats profusely"
Bad DPRK Takes (10.3k followers) tweeted: "Western left moment" (1.8k likes)
Communist Sailor Moon (8.9k followers) tweeted: "The DPRK is far more democratic than the US has ever been" (400 likes)
Cherrykickstart (8.9k followers) tweeted: North Korea has "Democratic control over all levels of society (1.3k likes)
KPR_Eng (6.0k followers) tweeted (one, two): "How does North Korea's political system work? [....] All major DPRK positions are chosen by the supreme popular assembly backed by the will of the people." (2.9k likes)
NatalieRevolts (40.9k followers) tweeted: North Korea is "A democratic nation by and for the working class, the masters of everything 🗳️" (100 likes)
hermit_hwarang (40.6k followers) tweeted (100 likes): This screenshot literally explains that DPRK elections are in fact multiparty. The parties nominate their candidates & then the electorate chooses a single candidate to approve or disapprove of on voting day. The voting is just the final step in a longer democratic process"
belalugosiisred (13.2k followers) tweeted: “Hitler wasn’t a socialist, national socialist party are ‘socialist’ in name only....” yes correct, go on “....just like DPRK is democratic in name only” no, shut up (300 likes)
The vanguardist screenshots end here.
If you're a vanguardist, this should cause you some concern. The belief that North Korea is a democracy is wrong. Obviously, absurdly wrong.
It's easy to see how biased Western coverage of North Korea can make people lose trust in Western media reporting on North Korea. For example, look at the content posted by Bad DPRK Takes, a Stalinist account. Easily 75% of their posts highlight absurd bullshit from major Western media or popular dissidents, such as the example below:
But the correct response to learning that "Western media sometimes says insane shit for clickbait-profits or for propaganda" is not to blindly trust anti-Western sources. How can you hear North Korean government media report that "100% of the country has happily consolidated their loyalty behind Kim Jong Un" after every single election and not want to vomit? You should approach all media sources skeptically, especially those with strong financial or political incentives.
If you're a vanguardist, you understand why it looks bad (and is bad) for liberals to blindly trust nonsense from Western media about North Korea. They look gullible and easily misled. That's exactly why it looks bad (and is bad) for you to blindly trust nonsense from North Korean government media.
Conclusion and shilling
In general, I am deeply skeptical of any system where democracy happens behind closed doors, which claims "mass consensus" after the fact, and which has no open competition between parties that represent distinct ideologies. You should be too!
In short: North Korea is not a democracy. North Korea is not a shining example of socialism. North Korea's people suffer from the US-led broad economic sanctions, but North Korea's government does not. You should oppose sanctions on North Korea and support other visions of socialism.
I'm writing blogs on socialist and progressive topics. To support my work:
Subscribe on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/socdoneleft
Subscribe on Substack:
While I do like Hakim and his content, his take on this is just... bad. Thank you for providing a critical response. The Socialist Movement needs more discussion like this.
Damn, the electoral system here is even funnier than I thought. Great article.