The DPRK’s electoral democracy relates primarily to the people’s assemblies, along with local state organs, assemblies, and committees. Every eligible citizen may stand for election, so much so that independent candidates are regularly elected to the people’s assemblies and may even be elected to be the speaker or chair. The history of the DPRK has many such examples. I think here of Ryu Mi Yong (1921–2016), who moved from south to north in 1986 so as to take up her role as chair of the Chondoist Chongu Party (The Party of the Young Friends of the Heavenly Way, formed in 1946). She was elected to the Supreme People’s Assembly and became a member of the Standing Committee (then called the Presidium). Other examples include Gang Ryang Uk, a Presbyterian minister who was a leader of the Korean Christian Federation (a Protestant organisation) and served as vice president of the DPRK from 1972 until his death in 1982, as well as Kim Chang Jun, who was an ordained Methodist minister and became vice-chair of the Supreme People’s Assembly (Ryu 2006, 673). Both Gang and Kim were buried at the Patriots’ Cemetery.
How do elections to all of the various bodies of governance work? Elections are universal and use secret ballots, and are—notably—direct. To my knowledge, the DPRK is the only socialist country that has implemented direct elections at all levels. Neither the Soviet Union (in its time) nor China have embraced a complete system of direct elections, preferring—and here I speak of China—to have direct elections at the lower levels of the people’s congresses, and indirect elections to the higher levels.
As for candidates, it may initially seem as though the DPRK follows the Soviet Union’s approach in having a single candidate for each elected position. This is indeed the case for the final process of voting, but there is also a distinct difference: candidates are selected through a robust process in the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland. As mentioned earlier, the struggle against Japanese imperialism and liberation of the whole peninsula drew together many organisations, and it is these that came to form the later Democratic Front. The Front was formed on 25 July, 1949 (Kim Il Sung 1949), and today includes the three political parties, and a range of mass organisations from the unions, youth, women, children, agricultural workers, journalism, literature and arts, and Koreans in Japan (Chongryon). Notably, it also includes representation from the Korean Christian Federation (Protestant), Korean Catholic Federation, and the Korean Buddhist Federation. All of these mass organisations make up the Democratic Front, and it is this organisation that proposes candidates. In many respects, this is where the multi-candidate dimension of elections comes to the fore. Here candidates are nominated for consideration from all of the mass organisations represented. Their suitability and merit for the potential nomination is debated and discussed at many mass meetings, and only then is the final candidate nominated for elections to the SPA. Now we can see why candidates from the Chondoist movement, as well as from the Christian churches, have been and can be elected to the SPA and indeed the local assemblies.
To sum up the electoral process, we may see it in terms of a dialectical both-and: multi-candidate elections take place in the Democratic Front, which engages in extensive consideration of suitable candidates; single candidate elections take place for the people’s assemblies. It goes without saying that in a non-antagonistic system of class and group interaction, the criterion for election is merit and political suitability
As for the bodies of governance, there is a similar continuity and discontinuity compared with other socialist countries. Unlike the Soviet Union, there is a unicameral Supreme People’s Assembly, which is the highest authority in terms of laws, regulations, the constitution, and all leadership roles. The SPA is also responsible for the national economic plan, the country’s budget, and foreign policy directions (Han 2016, 47–48). At the same time, the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland has an analogous function to a second organ of governance. This is a uniquely Korean approach to the question of a second organ of governance. While not an organ of governance as such, it plays a direct role in electoral democracy (see above), as well as the all-important manifestation of consultative democracy (see below). A further reason for this unique role of the Democratic Front may be adduced: while the Soviet Union and China see the second body or organ as representative of all minority nationalities and relevant groups, the absence of minority nationalities in a much smaller Korea means that such a form of representation is not needed.
I highly recommend the book, it helps shed light on some often misunderstood mechanisms in socialist democracy, including the directly addressed fact that the DPRK’s voting process includes single candidate approval voting. Without the context of the candidate selection process, this is spun as entirely anti-democratic.
it’s so democratic, that the grandfather of the current ruler is the eternal leader, and somehow, the family seems to have ran the country unopposed, as though they are some kind of Royalty.
but comrade, that’s what’s so glorious about True Korea ; there are no kings, it truly is a socialist democratic paradise, where the tourists are not allowed to take pictures of anything deemed unfit, even in public spaces!
you are a clown, and making the left wing look bad.
The Kim family has outsized influence, largely because Kim Il Sung is still seen as a vital contributor to the establishment of the DPRK. Further, the “Eternal President” title is an honorary title still held by Kim Il Sung, as the presidency position he held was abolished after his death and decentralized. Kim Jong-Un is the General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea and the President of the State Affairs Commission, but these are not “head of state” positions as Kim Il-Sung had.
I’m not sure how you can claim I’m a clown, I’ve clearly done my research on the topic while your only point is “tourists can’t take unapproved pictures.”
I’m not sure how you can claim I’m a clown, I’ve clearly done my research on the topic while your only point is “tourists can’t take unapproved pictures.”
yeah, a lack of transparancy reveals how honest the “research” you’ve done is. good luck leading the armed revolution to install the next authoritarian communist regime that will lead to a workers paradise, instead of a stagnant totalitarian state!
Careful that they don’t send you to the gulag in the next purge.
Where’s my lack of transparency? I linked my sources. If you mean preventing tourists from taking photos willy-nilly, the DPRK is still at war presently, and still has instances where the US millitary murders their civilians. The rest of your comment isn’t even a point, it’s like a bingo of tired tropes lacking in any investigation.
To the contrary of your claims of “totalitarianism,” socialist states have brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have the aforementioned Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
On the whole, soviet prisons and the justice system itself were more progressive than their peers, Mary Stevenson Callcott documented it quite well in Russian Justice. The soviet union, despite having a progressive legal system, was in a state of constant turmoil caused by pressures both external and internal. They couldn’t simply delete all previously existing ruling-class people and ideology, class struggle continues under socialism. Further, pressure from the imperialist west, invasion both in threat and in action, and intentional sabateurs meant that the prisons certainly weren’t empty. The soviet union never had a single year of normal, stable growth, free from intense opposition on the outside and counter-revolutionary forces on the inside.
Yes, it seems to be democratic just like the Democratic People’s Republic of Northern Korea. You got me so good. /s
From Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance:
I highly recommend the book, it helps shed light on some often misunderstood mechanisms in socialist democracy, including the directly addressed fact that the DPRK’s voting process includes single candidate approval voting. Without the context of the candidate selection process, this is spun as entirely anti-democratic.
it’s so democratic, that the grandfather of the current ruler is the eternal leader, and somehow, the family seems to have ran the country unopposed, as though they are some kind of Royalty.
but comrade, that’s what’s so glorious about True Korea ; there are no kings, it truly is a socialist democratic paradise, where the tourists are not allowed to take pictures of anything deemed unfit, even in public spaces!
you are a clown, and making the left wing look bad.
The Kim family has outsized influence, largely because Kim Il Sung is still seen as a vital contributor to the establishment of the DPRK. Further, the “Eternal President” title is an honorary title still held by Kim Il Sung, as the presidency position he held was abolished after his death and decentralized. Kim Jong-Un is the General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea and the President of the State Affairs Commission, but these are not “head of state” positions as Kim Il-Sung had.
I’m not sure how you can claim I’m a clown, I’ve clearly done my research on the topic while your only point is “tourists can’t take unapproved pictures.”
yeah, a lack of transparancy reveals how honest the “research” you’ve done is. good luck leading the armed revolution to install the next authoritarian communist regime that will lead to a workers paradise, instead of a stagnant totalitarian state!
Careful that they don’t send you to the gulag in the next purge.
Where’s my lack of transparency? I linked my sources. If you mean preventing tourists from taking photos willy-nilly, the DPRK is still at war presently, and still has instances where the US millitary murders their civilians. The rest of your comment isn’t even a point, it’s like a bingo of tired tropes lacking in any investigation.
To the contrary of your claims of “totalitarianism,” socialist states have brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have the aforementioned Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
On the whole, soviet prisons and the justice system itself were more progressive than their peers, Mary Stevenson Callcott documented it quite well in Russian Justice. The soviet union, despite having a progressive legal system, was in a state of constant turmoil caused by pressures both external and internal. They couldn’t simply delete all previously existing ruling-class people and ideology, class struggle continues under socialism. Further, pressure from the imperialist west, invasion both in threat and in action, and intentional sabateurs meant that the prisons certainly weren’t empty. The soviet union never had a single year of normal, stable growth, free from intense opposition on the outside and counter-revolutionary forces on the inside.
Do you have any real points?
yeah, that you never cite any actually eras that democratic, left wing, actually free countries had.
What do you mean by “eras?”
Removed by mod