Do other dictatorships lack the ability or stomach to be as evil as North Korea

Great Debates
1

Freedom house lists North Korea as among the worst of the worst nations for human and civil rights, and lists China as nearly as bad. But from what I’ve read of defectors once they get into China (even the rural parts, and even back in the 80s and 90s when China’s economy was much smaller) people are amazed at how free and wealthy China is compared to North korea. So even among the bottom of the countries on earth for poverty and abuse of citizens, North Korea is in a sphere all its own.

And North Korea seems to be a dictators paradise. The public are brainwashed into worshiping a family of evil kleptomaniacs. People starve to death w/o uttering a word of protest. Rebellion and resistance are largely unknown. The public are grossly misinformed about the world around them. People are so divided from each other that they can’t unite against the government. The government punishes family members which prevents people from standing up (standing up and getting shot is one thing. Having to see your kids and grandkids go to a concentration camp for 20 years is another).

But doing that requires some pretty evil stuff. Sending a persons cousins, kids, grandkids, parents and grandparents to concentration camps at the slightest hint of protest. Not caring in the slightest while people starve to death. Completely controlling the media so people can’t get books, shows and music that is not government sponsored.

And not only that but North Korea seems to have done a pretty good job of dividing its people and making them dependent on the state. People are constantly taught to fear and mistrust each other. People have daily criticism sessions where they get together and talk about their own and each others failures and how they’ve failed to live up to the standards of the Kim family. It is like the psychology of domestic violence or a cult taken to the evil extreme. You make people distrust and question themselves and each other, then take their insecurity to make them dependent on their abuser and unable to form an escape. Wash, rinse, repeat.

In nations like Iraq people have religion and ethnic ties to unite them with each other and against the government. In North Korea I don’t think there are any ties people can use to unite together and against the government (from what I know), all cultural ties are designed to make people dependent on the state and hateful and mistrustful of outsiders. People fear and mistrust each other. Heck, the constant starvation in North Korea keeps people divided. It turns families against each other, and makes people desperate to not die. From what I know there is no religion, ethnic ties, cultural ties, etc for people to unite and identify with. The religion is Kimism. The culture is Kimism. The ethnic philosophy is one of racist, xenophobic Kimism.

But doing that is pretty evil.

So what I’m asking is do nations like Iraq (under Saddam), or Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, etc. lack the ability to do what North Korea has done, or lack the stomach? Do the dictators in Myanmar just refuse to do what the North did because they couldn’t stomach it (and because the military wouldn’t enforce it) or is it more that they know it wouldn’t work?

I’ve heard Saddam was a big fan of Stalin, but I don’t think he could’ve remolded Iraqi culture into making it a reflection of himself the way Kim Il Sung did in North Korea. But had he had the ability, I’m thinking he would have.

2

Maybe they don’t want to.

Are you assuming that all dictators wish for a situation like the one in North Korea?

3

I’m assuming North Korea is the ‘ideal’ dictatorship from the POV of the dictator and the aristocratic circles. An iron fisted kleptocracy where the public are submissive no matter how badly they are mistreated.

4

As a speculation into the psychology of dictators, I’d imagine that many of them at least think they want something better than that. So I’d say it’s not just lacking the ability or stomach–I think lack of desire is a genuine option here.

5

Maybe it’s less about ability (though Kim Jong-il’s program was difficult and would have been more so if not for certain flukes of geography) or “stomach.”

Maybe it’s about desire, and perceived gain. What profit is there in being North Korea? Not much. Who wants that? Relatively few who could get in a position to take it. Remember, Jong-il inherited his position from his relatively competent father. Most of the globe’s supply of self-absorbed jerks who want to be in a dynasty of god-kings aren’t in a position to make it happen.

6

I think that’s oversimplifying the matter a great deal.

I would assume there is just as much diversity amongst the goals of dictatorial leaders as there is amongst democratically elected ones, i.e. plenty.

7

Yea, I’m not sure the absolute ruler of an impoverished hell-hole is really that powerful. A country that doesn’t even have the wealth necessary to feed its domestic population isn’t going to have the wealth to do much else. So even if you assume all dictators want to maximize their own power, I don’t think going the N. Korea route is really the way to go.

8

Dictators are not completely unaccountable. They are all capable of being killed with just one bullet. They are all subject to coups. They can all be assassinated or overthrown by internal or external powers.

They may not be accountable to the masses, but they do have to keep their elites, their militaries and their foreign supporters happy. And elites, militaries, etc. have families, too. If you provide absolutely nothing of value to anyone, you are not going to remain in power long. This alone keeps a lot of dictators in check. If you start throwing everyone in prison camps, eventually you are going to start hitting the extended families of the elites that support you. Being dictator is not some wild card to do whatever the hell you want. It requires walking some very thin lines, and managing some very fine relationships. Dictatorship is not the “easy” way to run a country. It’s a lot more work than a more responsive government where you have other people and organizations sharing the power and the risk. Dictatorship is only really worth it when there is no better option.

In North Korea’s case, I’d venture that being stuck in the middle of a US/China conflict has served the dictatorship well. China is so big that NK doesn’t need to serve it’s elites very well- it has China to protect them. And as long as the US is right there, China will hold it’s nose and keep NK’s dictatorship in place. This means they have pretty much a free ticket to do things that most dictators couldn’t get away with.

I think it’s also important to view NK in it’s historical context. The famine in the 1990s was an actual famine, caused by the sudden collapse of their industrial economy as Communism fell, and a series of devastating floods and storms. A more open government could have obviously done a better job handling it, but the famine also wasn’t an intentional act of pure evil. North Korea is the way it is for a number of complex reasons, one of which is pure evil, but pure evil is not the only part of the equation.

9

North Korea is a very old dictatorship so its people have no memory of something better. It is very isolated geographically, only having two borders. The Korean war ended with a cease fire not an actual peace treaty so they have a credible outside threat to blame. Historically, Korea has always been fought over by China and Japan so they have a deeply routed hatred of foreigners and love for their country. As a Confucian society they also have a deep respect for governmental authority. Add all of these things up and they make for a place that is ideally suited for an evil dictator to rule.
The length of time is probably the greatest asset that the dictatorship has. In order to get support from the elite the government has to have enough wealth generated to buy support. But if there is too much wealth then independent power centers can emerge. In the 1950’s NK was not much poorer than the surronding countries so they were able to buy off the elite. Since then power keeps being consolidated so the government needs the support of fewer and fewer and they can maintain control using fear instead of buying off support. A relatively young dictatorship like Burma has more people it has to make happy than an established one like North Korea. The North Koreans are so poor and frightened now, that the only hope is the Kim Jung Un has a conscience or China gets tired of the government. However China is afraid of a large mass of refugees flooding their border if the regime every fails so they are extremely unlikely to ever stop supporting the Norks.

10

That is kindof my point. North Korea does have the wealth to feed its people, but because it is a kleptocracy nothing gets done. And the people continue to worship the corrupt kleptocrats in charge.

Granted, dictators probably do have a huge variance in their POVs. But overall I’d assume most evil dictators want a submissive populace who let them walk all over them and take their stuff. Dictators don’t want rebellion, accountability or transparency. North Korea has none of those things from what I can tell.

Rice is $500 a ton. Wheat and corn are about $275. At 1-2 pounds a day of rice per person per day that means enough rice costs what, $150 a year tops per person. They spent $100 million on Kim Il Sungs mausoleum in the 90s. Kim Jong Il spent about a million a year on alcohol.

11

Nah, I’m not convinced. I’m sure you can find plenty of “true believers” amongst history’s dictators - guys for whom the idea of using their power to amass personal wealth must have seemed downright blasphemous. I’m thinking utopists, theocrats and the like.

12

I’m surprised that North Korea is regarded as the worst nation. I agree it’s probably the most repressive dictatorship on Earth but North Korea does have a semi-functioning system. I’d say things are worse off in Somalia where you’ve had a complete breakdown of society.

13

There are some who argue that Somalia is one of the freest countries in the world, precisely because it has no government to take away rights. Of course, there’s no one there to protect your rights either, but that’s the way some people want it.

14

Specifically, people who don’t have to actually live there and can delude themselves that “no government rules” = “freedom”. Without government, you have no rights, and the only freedom you have is the freedom to be enslaved by anyone with more power than you.

15

Somalia had a breakdown of it’s central government, but it has a functioning society and dozens of functioning smaller governments. Somaliland and Puntland in the north have had stable semi democratic governments for decades. There is free access to the internet and the cheapest mobile phone rates in Africa. Turkey just started regular commercial scheduled international flights to Mogadishu, the first passenger flights in two decades. Even though the Transitional Government only controls a very small part, it seems it’s a relatively stable place to do business.

I’d much rather live in Somalia than North Korea, especially because you can freely leave Somalia if you have the money. Try that in North Korea.

16

Except that there is always government, throughout most of history clan based rule by councils of elders was the norm in large parts of the world, and thats what Somalia fell back on when it’s central government fell.

Xeer is a unique customary law system developed in the horn of Africa and it has rights protections, including property rights and “sparing the lives of socially protected groups “Birr Magaydo,” (e.g. children, women, the pious, poets, messengers, sheikhs, and guests).”

17

There was an interesting discussion about why dictators aren’t more brutal and repressive in this recent IMHO thread. Self-preservation seems to be the consensus answer.