Another reason is that dissidents abroad may assist those dissidents still in-country. This assistance can be financial, propagandistic… in-country dissidents are more controllable than those abroad.
If you expel dissidents, sooner or later one of them will e charismatic leadership material.
It’s highly likely that exiled dissidents will work against their former nation, and will probably build up a base of support from international leaders, mischievous shit stirrers, and within their own country.
You need only look at Cuba to see what I mean, Cuba is no sort of threat at all to the US, and actually if US citizens could go there freely and do business, it would probably bring down the whole rotten edifice, however cuban exiles have organised effectively and gained enough political power that makes it very diffiecult for the US to drop the sanctions.
The awarding of the Papacy to Poe John Paul likely had quite a significant effect in undermining the regime in Poland. The Chinese still worry about the Dalai Lama.
If you are an absolutist state its far safer to keep dissidents under your control, with perhaps a few examples to ‘encourage the others’.
I don’t think this is true at all. Exiled dissidents played a role in encouraging the US, Britain (and other allies) to invade Iraq, including questionable intelligence and political lobbying. Then, after the invasion, they were the top candidates to take over the power void.
So North Korea might not have an internal press publicizing the dissident’s views, but they do have to worry about a dissident providing an excuse for international forces to invade, impose embargoes, etc.
There was a political joke around in the 80s regarding this:
When will the two Germanys be re-unified?
?
In 2009.
Why?
Because then the DDR will turn 60 and be allowed to leave.
It’s one of the back stairs jokes of history that the DDR did crumble and “leave” in an mass exodus during the gearing up of the festivities to their 40 year jubilee.
Well, where do you stop? This reminds me strongly of the French Revolution, which started with cutting off the heads of the royals and nobles. Then you had to look further for enemies, so active conter-revolutionaries were executed. In the end, everybody who looked the wrong way was beheaded (the total count was about 60% peasants executed. Some rebellion for the lower classes!).
Trying to get rid of your enemies by killing them or letting them go just means that new generation of enemies arises. There’s no end.
Thanks for all of the interesting insight so far. However, one thing nags on me that I don’t think has been addressed yet.
When I wrote the topic, I pretty much had North Korea in mind. That place is crap, but still they’ve been able to sustain a complete dictatorship and a good (for its size and relative wealth) military.
Suppose Kim lets everyone leave. Aren’t the military still brainwashed? Can North Korea function as strictly a military occupation without any civilians at all? Are the military so programmed to think he’s the Dear Leader that they will rationalize the fact that millions of civilians left the country? Could just the military keep the country functioning?
Who grows the food the soldiers eat?
Why do you think brainwashed civilians would leave but brainwashed soldiers would stay?
For that matter, where do you suppose the army gets its soldiers?