Eh… I don’t think the Democratic process can be measured in a binary pass or fail. There are definitely degrees of Democratic process, and I think the claim that Cuba and North Korea are virtually the same is a pretty large conflation.
Cuba at least has local elections which are vetted by the party. Meanwhile North Korea has single candidate elections that are pre-approved by the party.
If we’re just throwing nuance out the window, I’m not really sure if a country like America would really pass the “true democracy” test.
In Cuba there are actual local elections between members of the local community. Those competing must be in good standing with the party, but that’s fairly standard.
In N Korea the party selects the candidate and they run unopposed.
Interesting. But requiring being in good standing with the party is already enough to make these elections illegitimate. And given the lack of dissent allowed and the subservient position local officials typically have to national leaders this seems like a very small difference to me.
Interesting. But requiring being in good standing with the party is already enough to make these elections illegitimate.
There are plenty of political parties across the world that require candidates to be in good standing with the party before running for them in an election.
It’s not like any political party is going to be happy if an infamous person is representing them in an election.
If anything your grievance should be with single party democracies. Then again, there are plenty of single party states that aren’t criticized anywhere close to Cuba.
Like I said, democracies need to be weighed on a scale. Plus, simply being a democracy doesn’t necessarily mean a country is going to be a more equitable or virtuous society.
Yes, the issue is with single party states because in such states, the party and the state are basically synonymous. Insofar as a party is a voluntary organization, it’s fine to set standards for ideological unity. But once those standards become a requirement to access political power, your state is functionally no longer democratic.
And sure, there are other one party states, and they’re also bad. But I’m criticizing the Cuban government specifically because it has more defenders on Lemmy than those states do. Just look at how many angry comments I got.
sure, there are other one party states, and they’re also bad.
Is there a metric in which you use to determine if a country is good or bad? Surely it’s not just democracy = good?
Cuba (when not being illegally embargoed) has much higher living conditions, education, and access to healthcare when compared to other “democratic” countries with similar demographics.
Respect for autonomy and worker’s rights is important. Cuba does well in some metrics and very poorly on others. For example, few people know that they have one of the highest rates of incarceration of any country on earth. That’s not a sign of some socialist paradise, whatever other achievements they might have.
But I would generally look at an array of metrics but political freedoms are an important component, especially when we’re discussing government since unlike other metrics it’s totally within their power to control.
What’s the difference between vetted and pre-approved?
The difference is one election has more than one candidate to choose from and the election must be vetted by the state, and one election has just one candidate whom the state has already selected, and your vote doesn’t matter because the winner has already been decided.
Requiring the party’s approval is only a small step from them selecting the candidates though. Since they can simply refuse to approve any competing candidates.
Or since Cuba has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, simply arrest them.
I’m an anarchist so there’s no such thing as a candidate that represents me, because any person who represents me well enough to do the job knows it’s a job each individual must do for themselves. Government is always a casino, and the house always wins, and it boggles my mind that no matter how many times the people lose they keep building more casinos.
I understand and sympathize with anarchist positions and hope a stateless society can be achieved someday. But I don’t think acknowledging that states are harmful means we need to accept that they are equally harmful. And the Cuban form of government is a particularly bad one.
I admit I’m not familiar with the process for selecting local candidates but in a totalitarian system it hardly matters since the national government has absolute control over almost everything anyway.
Define totalitarianism in a way that includes Cuba but excludes the United States or any European country. Keep in mind the Communist party in Cuba is not one political party or entity.
If your argument is that Cuba isn’t totalitarian, you’re making a very poor case of it. However, if your argument is that the US and several European countries are far more totalitarian than they’re pretending to be, then you’re doing a great job.
It’s a party but not a party? Now you’re not making sense.
Totalitarian means virtually all political power flows through a single entity, typically the national government. Other sources of independent organizing are harshly repressed to the extent that they must be organized in secret or maintain an appearance of being apolitical.
I would consider the US authoritarian but not totalitarian. Too many countries in Europe to speak to them.
North Korea has local elections and the candidates, plural, have to live in the community they’re running to oversee.
Wasn’t the dual-candidate selection method only introduced in selected localities in like the last year or so? I’m pretty sure the SPA is still a single candidate selection as well.
In terms of democracy they’re all about equal. Essentially none.
Eh… I don’t think the Democratic process can be measured in a binary pass or fail. There are definitely degrees of Democratic process, and I think the claim that Cuba and North Korea are virtually the same is a pretty large conflation.
Cuba at least has local elections which are vetted by the party. Meanwhile North Korea has single candidate elections that are pre-approved by the party.
If we’re just throwing nuance out the window, I’m not really sure if a country like America would really pass the “true democracy” test.
What’s the difference between vetted and pre-approved?
I would also fail the US, true.
In Cuba there are actual local elections between members of the local community. Those competing must be in good standing with the party, but that’s fairly standard.
In N Korea the party selects the candidate and they run unopposed.
Interesting. But requiring being in good standing with the party is already enough to make these elections illegitimate. And given the lack of dissent allowed and the subservient position local officials typically have to national leaders this seems like a very small difference to me.
There are plenty of political parties across the world that require candidates to be in good standing with the party before running for them in an election.
It’s not like any political party is going to be happy if an infamous person is representing them in an election.
If anything your grievance should be with single party democracies. Then again, there are plenty of single party states that aren’t criticized anywhere close to Cuba.
Like I said, democracies need to be weighed on a scale. Plus, simply being a democracy doesn’t necessarily mean a country is going to be a more equitable or virtuous society.
Yes, the issue is with single party states because in such states, the party and the state are basically synonymous. Insofar as a party is a voluntary organization, it’s fine to set standards for ideological unity. But once those standards become a requirement to access political power, your state is functionally no longer democratic.
And sure, there are other one party states, and they’re also bad. But I’m criticizing the Cuban government specifically because it has more defenders on Lemmy than those states do. Just look at how many angry comments I got.
Is there a metric in which you use to determine if a country is good or bad? Surely it’s not just democracy = good?
Cuba (when not being illegally embargoed) has much higher living conditions, education, and access to healthcare when compared to other “democratic” countries with similar demographics.
Respect for autonomy and worker’s rights is important. Cuba does well in some metrics and very poorly on others. For example, few people know that they have one of the highest rates of incarceration of any country on earth. That’s not a sign of some socialist paradise, whatever other achievements they might have.
But I would generally look at an array of metrics but political freedoms are an important component, especially when we’re discussing government since unlike other metrics it’s totally within their power to control.
The difference is one election has more than one candidate to choose from and the election must be vetted by the state, and one election has just one candidate whom the state has already selected, and your vote doesn’t matter because the winner has already been decided.
My understanding was that Cuba also only had single candidate “elections”, chosen by the party. You’re saying that’s not correct?
I don’t know if that’s the case, I was just clarifying the notions put forth by the user you were replying to.
I see, I didn’t notice you weren’t OP.
Requiring the party’s approval is only a small step from them selecting the candidates though. Since they can simply refuse to approve any competing candidates.
Or since Cuba has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, simply arrest them.
I’m an anarchist so there’s no such thing as a candidate that represents me, because any person who represents me well enough to do the job knows it’s a job each individual must do for themselves. Government is always a casino, and the house always wins, and it boggles my mind that no matter how many times the people lose they keep building more casinos.
I understand and sympathize with anarchist positions and hope a stateless society can be achieved someday. But I don’t think acknowledging that states are harmful means we need to accept that they are equally harmful. And the Cuban form of government is a particularly bad one.
Do you have a single source for this belief or is it something you intuited from the aether?
https://lens.civicus.org/cuba-elections-without-choices/
I admit I’m not familiar with the process for selecting local candidates but in a totalitarian system it hardly matters since the national government has absolute control over almost everything anyway.
Define totalitarianism in a way that includes Cuba but excludes the United States or any European country. Keep in mind the Communist party in Cuba is not one political party or entity.
If your argument is that Cuba isn’t totalitarian, you’re making a very poor case of it. However, if your argument is that the US and several European countries are far more totalitarian than they’re pretending to be, then you’re doing a great job.
It’s a party but not a party? Now you’re not making sense.
Totalitarian means virtually all political power flows through a single entity, typically the national government. Other sources of independent organizing are harshly repressed to the extent that they must be organized in secret or maintain an appearance of being apolitical.
I would consider the US authoritarian but not totalitarian. Too many countries in Europe to speak to them.
…North Korea has local elections and the candidates, plural, have to live in the community they’re running to oversee.
Juche is set up pretty similar to China’s democracy at the lower levels, which isn’t surprising because of the influence of Mao.
Wasn’t the dual-candidate selection method only introduced in selected localities in like the last year or so? I’m pretty sure the SPA is still a single candidate selection as well.