3 ms·

This shows how thin is the layer of democracy in the society. "South Korea is a vibrant democracy. It's had free and fair elections since 1987." (so it is 28

This shows how thin is the layer of democracy in the society. "South Korea is a vibrant democracy. It's had free and fair elections since 1987." (so it is 28 years, this is only about 5 years more than nations in Eastern Europe who escaped Soviet Russian dictatorships). "Major-General Park Chung-hee took power in a coup in 1961. He was a strongman who utilised brutal methods - but he also dictated that industries be created. Under his direction, the South Korean economic phenomenon was born." (this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same) "Koreans know that. And the current president knows that. She should do - Park Geun-hye is the dictator's daughter. " (this makes me throw up a little)

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
> (this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same) Different strategies. Also, the DPRK made a number of big mistakes which doomed its economy, and much of its economic output is immediately spent on bribes. > This shows how thin is the layer of democracy in the society. It's not the only "democratic" East Asian country. I'm skeptical of Japan and Singapore where the same party always wins.
- patio11 11y ago
  I'm skeptical of Japan and Singapore where the same party always wins. Singapore is a de-facto one party state where it is notable when an opposition party wins any seats whatsoever in the legislature. Three of Japan's last four prime ministers were from the Democratic Party of Japan, which is not the Liberal Democratic Party, which is the "same party" you're thinking of. The Japanese government, for all its numerous faults, runs hotly contested elections on a more-than-regular basis which can, and do, result in "voting the bums out." Whether they have "democratic efficacy" is a bit more of an open question -- some observers of Japanese politics might opine that it is a rare, rare Japanese government where the legislature or prime minister exercise proximate control of the levers of sociopolitical power.
pjc50 11y ago
(this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same) Presumably the continuation of the proxy war; the US would have been a lot more open to South Korea.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  Gee, maybe instead that communism has been proven to be a economic, political, and human rights disaster? Oh right, of course not. Its the US's fault that broken ideology doesn't work, right? Communists never get judged by history it seems, at least on HN. Is there anything in your mind that isn't the US's fault?
  - rwallace 11y ago
    Humans are prone to the irrational assumption that fault is a rivalrous good, so everything must be the fault of A xor B. It seems to me the evidence supports the conclusion that communism is a miserable failure and the idiotic policy of trade sanctions and other forms of antagonism makes an already bad situation considerably worse.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    You've read an awful lot into that comment that wasn't there. As the original comment points out, in the period from WW2 to 1987 South Korea was also a dictatorship. The early industrial development was state-owned industry. Neither North nor South Korea had endogenous political development, and indeed North Korea is the last holdout of Soviet-style centralised power while South Korea has been heavily influenced by the US in is development. You might say it's been a "brutal success"; it has the economic development and seemingly everyone gets fed, but lacks political freedom. The US had a seemingly positive influence that was not available to North Korea; this is not a case of the US's "fault", not a result of active sabotage (unlike several countries in South America). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19697171 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19697171 "Behind the stellar growth were sacrifices by workers who suffered under a repressive labour environment," she said. "Behind the efforts for national security to protect (ourselves) from North Korea were human rights abuses committed by state power."
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same Because communism doesn't scale, doesn't really work past the stage of moving farmers into factories, and can only be implemented via punishing human rights violations that keep people from asserting their basic rights of property, prosperity, petitioning the government, changing leadership, etc. A South Korean "strongman" is pretty weak sauce compared to a communist strongman. Chung-hee held back democratic reforms and was an autocrat. The Jong-un dynasty has sent tens of millions of people to starvation, labor, and death camps, including children, mostly for political reasons. These things are not remotely comparable.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

> (this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same) Different strategies. Also, the DPRK made a number of big mistakes which doomed its economy, and much of its economic output is immediately spent on bribes. > This shows how thin is the layer of democracy in the society. It's not the only "democratic" East Asian country. I'm skeptical of Japan and Singapore where the same party always wins.

patio11 11y ago
I'm skeptical of Japan and Singapore where the same party always wins. Singapore is a de-facto one party state where it is notable when an opposition party wins any seats whatsoever in the legislature. Three of Japan's last four prime ministers were from the Democratic Party of Japan, which is not the Liberal Democratic Party, which is the "same party" you're thinking of. The Japanese government, for all its numerous faults, runs hotly contested elections on a more-than-regular basis which can, and do, result in "voting the bums out." Whether they have "democratic efficacy" is a bit more of an open question -- some observers of Japanese politics might opine that it is a rare, rare Japanese government where the legislature or prime minister exercise proximate control of the levers of sociopolitical power.

pjc50 11y ago

(this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same) Presumably the continuation of the proxy war; the US would have been a lot more open to South Korea.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Gee, maybe instead that communism has been proven to be a economic, political, and human rights disaster? Oh right, of course not. Its the US's fault that broken ideology doesn't work, right? Communists never get judged by history it seems, at least on HN. Is there anything in your mind that isn't the US's fault?
- rwallace 11y ago
  Humans are prone to the irrational assumption that fault is a rivalrous good, so everything must be the fault of A xor B. It seems to me the evidence supports the conclusion that communism is a miserable failure and the idiotic policy of trade sanctions and other forms of antagonism makes an already bad situation considerably worse.
- pjc50 11y ago
  You've read an awful lot into that comment that wasn't there. As the original comment points out, in the period from WW2 to 1987 South Korea was also a dictatorship. The early industrial development was state-owned industry. Neither North nor South Korea had endogenous political development, and indeed North Korea is the last holdout of Soviet-style centralised power while South Korea has been heavily influenced by the US in is development. You might say it's been a "brutal success"; it has the economic development and seemingly everyone gets fed, but lacks political freedom. The US had a seemingly positive influence that was not available to North Korea; this is not a case of the US's "fault", not a result of active sabotage (unlike several countries in South America). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19697171 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19697171 "Behind the stellar growth were sacrifices by workers who suffered under a repressive labour environment," she said. "Behind the efforts for national security to protect (ourselves) from North Korea were human rights abuses committed by state power."

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

>this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same Because communism doesn't scale, doesn't really work past the stage of moving farmers into factories, and can only be implemented via punishing human rights violations that keep people from asserting their basic rights of property, prosperity, petitioning the government, changing leadership, etc. A South Korean "strongman" is pretty weak sauce compared to a communist strongman. Chung-hee held back democratic reforms and was an autocrat. The Jong-un dynasty has sent tens of millions of people to starvation, labor, and death camps, including children, mostly for political reasons. These things are not remotely comparable.