8 ms·

One of the things that surprised me in high school history was just how recent many democracies are. Within the lifetime of my parents, Portugal, Greece, Spain

One of the things that surprised me in high school history was just how recent many democracies are. Within the lifetime of my parents, Portugal, Greece, Spain were dictatorships. Apparently South Korea is one of these as well.

baybal2 5y ago
And its a good reminder just how fledging this moment can be. Two days ago I posted an article on just how rapid was the downfall of democracies in the last decade: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27320565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27320565 There are less functioning democracies today than in 1991. The truth of life is simple. There is no deep, philosophical argument to it. Who wins, rules, be it a democracy, or totalitarianism. If you lose to totalitarians, you die. If totalitarians lose to you, they die. Do not discount military action as sometimes the only option on the table to defend, and solidify a democracy.
- bserge 5y ago
  And if that military has other plans, well, learn to live under the new regime. I always think how fortunate western Europe was to have the US force them into democracy and freedom for the individual. Many don't agree with that, but if left to either the Nazis or the Soviets, we'd all be living under some sort of authoritarian regimes to this day.
- op03 5y ago
  Or Democracies could just try attack ala Soliemani.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  If you lose to totalitarians, you die. If totalitarians lose to you, they die. That's kind of a bizarre and exaggerated way to put things. Nominally, what separates dictatorship and democracy is that a democratic regime doesn't wantonly murder it's enemies. Some dictatorial regimes engage in brutal attacks on their enemies but even there, for most people life goes on. Also, there are a variety of regimes mid-way between democracy and totalitarianism - the current regimes of India and Turkey for example. Which is to say the loss and the gaining of democratic rights is often (though not always) a gradual thing.
- magicsmoke 5y ago
  The way I think of it is that democracy is a very expensive form of governance. Having legal protections and representation for all members of society is great, but it is also a luxury that allows various bad actors and interest groups to clog up the entire system for their personal gain. And the only way to afford this political luxury is to ensure that the economic vibrancy of an open system produces enough wealth to patch up what gets bled away by democracy's inherent costs. And if that is not enough, to have an external source of wealth to subsidize this continuous bleeding. Because if democracy fails to produce enough wealth and distribute it to enough people, then people quickly turn to authoritarians who claim they have all the answers. Under these assumptions, the burgeoning of democracies in the 1990s might be due to indirect economic subsidies from the US. And the reason why the US could be a democracy is because the American continent, with other resource claimants eliminated by disease and war, could generate enough wealth to subsidize a messy but democratic system of governance that otherwise might have been overrun by more powerful authoritarian neighbors if it had been born on the Eurasian continent.
  - jhanschoo 5y ago
    > it is also a luxury that allows various bad actors and interest groups to clog up the entire system for their personal gain I don't see how this is something that democracy enables. Self-serving dukes, officials, and autocrats possessing difficult-to-check powers also exist in less democratic regimes.
schoen 5y ago
Also Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Taiwan Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_in_Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_in_Brazi... Argentina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Argentine_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Argentine_coup_d%27%C3%A9... Chile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... Paraguay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Stronato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Stronato Well, I guess I'm just missing about 40 others... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship#Former_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship#Former_c...
- umanwizard 5y ago
  Mexico was not a dictatorship, but it was a non-democratic one-party state until the late 20th century.
  - 0x10c0fe11ce 5y ago
    Ironically you just loosely described a dictatorship, a democratically “elected” single party government. https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictatorship https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictatorship
    - umanwizard 5y ago
      > Dictatorship, form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. No, this isn't what I was describing, and isn't the same thing as a one-party state. There were important limitations on central power that were respected throughout the entire period of PRI rule; notably the restriction that a president couldn't serve for more than one term, which since the Mexican Revolution has never been broken. "Dictatorship" to "liberal democracy" is a spectrum, and Mexico for most of the 20th century was not at either of the endpoints.
      - 5y ago
CalChris 5y ago
Dictatorship is very common today: https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/ https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/ January 6th was close to creating another dictatorship here.
- lurker3901 5y ago
  I feel sorry for you if you actually believe that.
- mistermann 5y ago
  How close were we? Was there a pivotal moment where an individual hero saved the day, or maybe something completely different? Just trying to get a handle on the truth of the matter, I don't seem to know very much about the specific details of that infamous day where our most precious institution hung in the balance (if I'm understanding correctly).
  - Sophistifunk 5y ago
    It was a dumb protest. There was absolutely zero threat to the machinery of government in any way shape or form, and anybody claiming otherwise is simply working as part of the machinery desperately trying to rid itself of an outsider.
    - macintux 5y ago
      Had the certificates been destroyed, or Congressional leadership or the VP killed, it’s not at all obvious what the result would have been. Very few “dumb protests” involve beating police officers to unconsciousness to get past them into a federal building.
      - mistermann 5y ago
        Is it a fact that multiple police officers were beat into unconsciousness so people could get past them?
- 5y ago
smnrchrds 5y ago
Women's right to vote in Switzerland is much more recent than you might expect. 1971 for federal elections, 1991 when the last hold-out canton was forced to allow them to vote in local elections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerl...
jinwoo68 5y ago
And don’t assume the democracy will stay here. It is in constant threats and can be lost if you don’t fight hard always. Just a few years ago in Korea, the very daughter of the dictator became the president and people had to fight again to expel her. I’m observing similar things happening in the US now…
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  Yes, it's important to remember that in the modern world, states often transition between a variety of forms. The common forms are representative democracy, military dictatorship, populist/strongman dictatorship (which can be formally democratic to whatever extent) and single-party "totalitarian" dictatorship but there are endless variations. All these are based on particular power groups and only partially relying on the consent of the governed - while also organizing the governed to give their consent, with represent democracy naturally relying most on the consent of the consent of the governed.
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    To add further: the ancient Greeks already had democracy. And yet most of history since then is not filled with democratic systems of governance.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  > I’m observing similar things happening in the US now I presume you mean the resistance to election audits - I know, it's disgusting.
michaelpb 5y ago
Definitely. For me, at least from what I remember from school in the 90s/00s in the US, this stuff wasn't taught at all. We just learned a bunch of left-over cold war rhetoric about being "leader of the free world", and little discussion of what actually went on in the "free world" that was being "lead". Events like this one -- or the Bodo League mass killings [1], or the institution of slavery in Korea [2], etc -- were not covered at all. Even more shocking is how violent and unimaginably cruel so many governments have been, and yet to this day they manage to be fondly remembered by many conservative citizens. For example, President Park Geunhye, daughter and "successor" to the dictator President Park Chung-hee, became president in a (questionable) election in 2012, with mass support from conservative voters. So even if a given dictatorship is gone, it's supporters are still here, and will be voting in as many similar policy as they can. History in high school used to be my least favorite subject, but as an adult, reading history books is like all I do, and I will use any excuse to go on and on about it (as evidenced by this now very long post lol) Edit: Not sure why I got so many downvotes so quickly, but just to be clear I'm not trying to pick on Korea or single out Korean conservatives --- this applies to many, many countries [3] --- I'm only using South Korea as what I thought was an interesting example, due to the original post being about Gwangju. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre [2] Slavery is now illegal, but for a modern horrific example in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_on_salt_farms_in_Sinan_County https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_on_salt_farms_in_Sinan... [3] Brazil is one I know well, but for a European example, the Mussolini Family continues to be elected by Italy's conservatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Legacy
- emmelaich 5y ago
  More recent slavery: https://time.com/longform/african-slave-trade/ https://time.com/longform/african-slave-trade/
bsder 5y ago
The Statue of Liberty was a gift from one of the only functioning Democracies to the only other functioning Democracy. And half the people in the US apparently do not believe in Democracy.
Jean-Philipe 5y ago
...and the GDR as well.
ping_pong 5y ago
South Korea was a dictatorship until the 90s. There were a lot of protests in South Korea up through the 90s.

baybal2 5y ago

And its a good reminder just how fledging this moment can be. Two days ago I posted an article on just how rapid was the downfall of democracies in the last decade: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27320565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27320565 There are less functioning democracies today than in 1991. The truth of life is simple. There is no deep, philosophical argument to it. Who wins, rules, be it a democracy, or totalitarianism. If you lose to totalitarians, you die. If totalitarians lose to you, they die. Do not discount military action as sometimes the only option on the table to defend, and solidify a democracy.

bserge 5y ago
And if that military has other plans, well, learn to live under the new regime. I always think how fortunate western Europe was to have the US force them into democracy and freedom for the individual. Many don't agree with that, but if left to either the Nazis or the Soviets, we'd all be living under some sort of authoritarian regimes to this day.
op03 5y ago
Or Democracies could just try attack ala Soliemani.
joe_the_user 5y ago
If you lose to totalitarians, you die. If totalitarians lose to you, they die. That's kind of a bizarre and exaggerated way to put things. Nominally, what separates dictatorship and democracy is that a democratic regime doesn't wantonly murder it's enemies. Some dictatorial regimes engage in brutal attacks on their enemies but even there, for most people life goes on. Also, there are a variety of regimes mid-way between democracy and totalitarianism - the current regimes of India and Turkey for example. Which is to say the loss and the gaining of democratic rights is often (though not always) a gradual thing.
magicsmoke 5y ago
The way I think of it is that democracy is a very expensive form of governance. Having legal protections and representation for all members of society is great, but it is also a luxury that allows various bad actors and interest groups to clog up the entire system for their personal gain. And the only way to afford this political luxury is to ensure that the economic vibrancy of an open system produces enough wealth to patch up what gets bled away by democracy's inherent costs. And if that is not enough, to have an external source of wealth to subsidize this continuous bleeding. Because if democracy fails to produce enough wealth and distribute it to enough people, then people quickly turn to authoritarians who claim they have all the answers. Under these assumptions, the burgeoning of democracies in the 1990s might be due to indirect economic subsidies from the US. And the reason why the US could be a democracy is because the American continent, with other resource claimants eliminated by disease and war, could generate enough wealth to subsidize a messy but democratic system of governance that otherwise might have been overrun by more powerful authoritarian neighbors if it had been born on the Eurasian continent.
- jhanschoo 5y ago
  > it is also a luxury that allows various bad actors and interest groups to clog up the entire system for their personal gain I don't see how this is something that democracy enables. Self-serving dukes, officials, and autocrats possessing difficult-to-check powers also exist in less democratic regimes.

schoen 5y ago

Also Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Taiwan Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_in_Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_in_Brazi... Argentina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Argentine_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Argentine_coup_d%27%C3%A9... Chile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... Paraguay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Stronato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Stronato Well, I guess I'm just missing about 40 others... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship#Former_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship#Former_c...

umanwizard 5y ago
Mexico was not a dictatorship, but it was a non-democratic one-party state until the late 20th century.
- 0x10c0fe11ce 5y ago
  Ironically you just loosely described a dictatorship, a democratically “elected” single party government. https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictatorship https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictatorship
  - umanwizard 5y ago
    > Dictatorship, form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. No, this isn't what I was describing, and isn't the same thing as a one-party state. There were important limitations on central power that were respected throughout the entire period of PRI rule; notably the restriction that a president couldn't serve for more than one term, which since the Mexican Revolution has never been broken. "Dictatorship" to "liberal democracy" is a spectrum, and Mexico for most of the 20th century was not at either of the endpoints.
    - 5y ago

CalChris 5y ago

Dictatorship is very common today: https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/ https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/ January 6th was close to creating another dictatorship here.

lurker3901 5y ago
I feel sorry for you if you actually believe that.
mistermann 5y ago
How close were we? Was there a pivotal moment where an individual hero saved the day, or maybe something completely different? Just trying to get a handle on the truth of the matter, I don't seem to know very much about the specific details of that infamous day where our most precious institution hung in the balance (if I'm understanding correctly).
- Sophistifunk 5y ago
  It was a dumb protest. There was absolutely zero threat to the machinery of government in any way shape or form, and anybody claiming otherwise is simply working as part of the machinery desperately trying to rid itself of an outsider.
  - macintux 5y ago
    Had the certificates been destroyed, or Congressional leadership or the VP killed, it’s not at all obvious what the result would have been. Very few “dumb protests” involve beating police officers to unconsciousness to get past them into a federal building.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      Is it a fact that multiple police officers were beat into unconsciousness so people could get past them?
5y ago

smnrchrds 5y ago

Women's right to vote in Switzerland is much more recent than you might expect. 1971 for federal elections, 1991 when the last hold-out canton was forced to allow them to vote in local elections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerl...

jinwoo68 5y ago

And don’t assume the democracy will stay here. It is in constant threats and can be lost if you don’t fight hard always. Just a few years ago in Korea, the very daughter of the dictator became the president and people had to fight again to expel her. I’m observing similar things happening in the US now…

joe_the_user 5y ago
Yes, it's important to remember that in the modern world, states often transition between a variety of forms. The common forms are representative democracy, military dictatorship, populist/strongman dictatorship (which can be formally democratic to whatever extent) and single-party "totalitarian" dictatorship but there are endless variations. All these are based on particular power groups and only partially relying on the consent of the governed - while also organizing the governed to give their consent, with represent democracy naturally relying most on the consent of the consent of the governed.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  To add further: the ancient Greeks already had democracy. And yet most of history since then is not filled with democratic systems of governance.
redis_mlc 5y ago
> I’m observing similar things happening in the US now I presume you mean the resistance to election audits - I know, it's disgusting.

michaelpb 5y ago

Definitely. For me, at least from what I remember from school in the 90s/00s in the US, this stuff wasn't taught at all. We just learned a bunch of left-over cold war rhetoric about being "leader of the free world", and little discussion of what actually went on in the "free world" that was being "lead". Events like this one -- or the Bodo League mass killings [1], or the institution of slavery in Korea [2], etc -- were not covered at all. Even more shocking is how violent and unimaginably cruel so many governments have been, and yet to this day they manage to be fondly remembered by many conservative citizens. For example, President Park Geunhye, daughter and "successor" to the dictator President Park Chung-hee, became president in a (questionable) election in 2012, with mass support from conservative voters. So even if a given dictatorship is gone, it's supporters are still here, and will be voting in as many similar policy as they can. History in high school used to be my least favorite subject, but as an adult, reading history books is like all I do, and I will use any excuse to go on and on about it (as evidenced by this now very long post lol) Edit: Not sure why I got so many downvotes so quickly, but just to be clear I'm not trying to pick on Korea or single out Korean conservatives --- this applies to many, many countries [3] --- I'm only using South Korea as what I thought was an interesting example, due to the original post being about Gwangju. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre [2] Slavery is now illegal, but for a modern horrific example in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_on_salt_farms_in_Sinan_County https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_on_salt_farms_in_Sinan... [3] Brazil is one I know well, but for a European example, the Mussolini Family continues to be elected by Italy's conservatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Legacy

emmelaich 5y ago
More recent slavery: https://time.com/longform/african-slave-trade/ https://time.com/longform/african-slave-trade/

bsder 5y ago

The Statue of Liberty was a gift from one of the only functioning Democracies to the only other functioning Democracy. And half the people in the US apparently do not believe in Democracy.

Jean-Philipe 5y ago

...and the GDR as well.

ping_pong 5y ago

South Korea was a dictatorship until the 90s. There were a lot of protests in South Korea up through the 90s.