
As Economy Grows, North Korea's Grip on Society Weakens - wallflower
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/world/asia/north-korea-economy-marketplace.html
======
astebbin
We've heard this story before. In the West, the line (for years!) was that
China's economic growth and foreign trade would _inevitably_ lead to
democratization and widespread human rights improvements. That didn't happen
-- the Communist party adapted quickly. They learned how to use economic
growth as the base of their continued legitimacy, and as a fig leaf for
continued political oppression (Internet censorship, jailing human rights
activists, intimidating journalists, etc). With China as their mentor, I don't
have high hopes for a different scenario unfolding in North Korea.

~~~
timthelion
But this isn't about freedom or democracy. This is about foreign investment.
The wealthy New Yorkers who subscribe to the times care about foreign
investment, not freedom or democracy.

~~~
sdiq
While I have never been to the US and the UK, the NYT and the Guardian are two
places I occasionally stumble to, to find out what's going on in the world.
Well, you don't have to be a New Yorker to read the NYT, and neither is its
focus.

~~~
petre
No, you just have to be left leaning for those news outlets to grab your
attention. I also read them occasionally but pretty much avoid the NYT now or
just read through the lines.

------
MatthiasP
This is my favorite argument against economic sanctions. Ruining the economy
of a country only pushes society into dependence of the political clique that
controls the state. On the other hand, economic growth and an abundance of
goods breeds individualism and that is one of the incubators of democracy.

~~~
woodandsteel
I see your point, but in the case of North Korea exactly the opposite is
happening. For decades the political elite had an iron grip on the country.
But then sanctions help push the country into more of a free enterprise
system, and that is weakening the government's power.

~~~
jaredklewis
It seems speculative. How do you know that, should there have been no
sanctions, these free enterprise systems would not have been introduced
anyway? Or even know that would not have been developed more than they are
now?

With so many huge changes both inside and outside DPRK during the past
decades, to credit the gradual introduction free market systems to sanctions
seems tendentious.

~~~
petre
Sanctions are always better than war. People adapt. Or negotiate their way
out. Just look at Iran.

Free market in NK? Maybe free as in the state is too busy caring right now and
market as in flea market.

------
cletus
There are lots of mistaken beliefs around democracy.

US foreign policy seems to at least pay lip service to the idea that democracy
is inherently good. But efforts to impose democracy on nations that have only
ever been autocratic seems to have a poor history.

Likewise others have mentioned that China is "proof" that economic growth
doesn't lead to democracy.

China I think is a really interesting case. When I compare China and India,
which are both developing nations of massive size (over a billion people
each), it seems to be as an outsider looking in that the Chinese are way
better off than the Indians despite China being ostensibly communist and India
ostensibly democratic.

This is likely to be a controversial statement.

This doesn't excuse the bad on either side. China has the annexation of China,
lack of a free press, labour camps, the almost industrial scale genocide of
baby girls and poor labour conditions to name a few. India has a huge problem
with poverty, a population growth rate that's really concerning, a real
problem with rape (at least in parts) and a ridiculous territorial ego fest
with Pakistan over Kashmir.

But what the Chinese have, which I think ultimately benefits citizens, is
political stability. While China is still called a Communist country it's
unlike any other Communist country I've ever seen in that there are markets, a
form of capitalism and the accumulation of private wealth.

What I also see is the topping of totalitarian regimes in places like Iraq and
Libya. This is part of the reason fro the current refugee crisis in Europe.
And as awful as I'm sure the al-Asaad regime is in Syria, has anyone really
benefitted from the prolonged civil war in Syria?

So anyway, North Korea. It's certainly another interesting case and it has
managed to survive when other such regimes have fallen by the wayside. This is
in large part to China. Powerful countries like buffers between other powerful
countries. Russia certainly wanted and wants one with the EU and NATO.

North Korea also survives by a strict and brutal control on information so I'm
happy to see efforts people make to smuggle even things like TV shows into
North Korea. These I do think ultimately help to weaken the regime but the
process is not quick.

I don't think that North Korea--or anywhere else--is ultimately bound for
democracy however.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
What is interesting is that by population, 90% of the functioning democracies
in the world were at one time ruled by the United Kingdom or one of its former
colonies. The list includes India, Canada, USA, Australia, Ireland, Pakistan,
Philippines, South Africa, Japan, and Germany.

The fact that so many democracies derive from the UK means that democracy is
not a default state and to be successful needs centuries of tradition and
institutions to make it work well.

~~~
eiji
In what way does the German democracy derive from the UK? You are
oversimplifying. I get what you are trying to say, but it's not just tradition
and institutions. There is a lot more to it.

~~~
slededit
Western Germany was ruled for a short period by both the UK and the United
States after World War II, where they spent a great deal of effort to setup a
functional and self sufficient government. Prior to that they did have a short
lived democratic government but Hitler saw to its demise rather quickly.

~~~
MatthiasP
Even before the Weimar Republic Germany already had many democratic elements.
There were political parties, a constitution, checks and balances for
governing officers and a somewhat free press. The Kaiser could not rule
despotically and had to take public opinion into account.

~~~
petre
Democratic elements does not equate to true democracy. There weren't enough
safeguards. It took a motivated Austrian less than ten years to undo them and
turn Germany into a totalitarian state.

~~~
nl
Ten years is actually a pretty long time for it to take a popular leader to
destroy a functioning democracy.

There are numerous examples of democracies collapsing from what seemed a
stable state much quicker than that.

The collapse of the French Fourth Republic in 1958 is a good example[1]. In
that case it led to another democracy, but that is only because the army
wanted de Gaulle, and de Gaulle was happy to be president in a parliamentary
system.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Fourth_Republic#Algeria...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Fourth_Republic#Algeria_and_collapse)

------
arcanus
How is this different than China, where the party has retained an iron grip
despite a multi-decade boom?

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Perhaps they are able to retain an iron grip because of the boom, it will be
interesting to see what happens when the inevitable bust arrives.

------
zabana
Are we so arrogant that we should feel legitimate to tell people what they
should aspire to and what model they should adopt ? People tend to confuse
economic growth, prosperity, well being and democracy as if none of that
existed before, as if before our holy democracy people didn't prosper.
Economic growth and technological progress are a function of political
stability, which can come in many forms including (but not exclusive to)
democracy. Western Countries have the largest number of depressed people and
the highest suicide rates in the world. I'm sure it sucks to be living in NK
right now, but if the regime opens up and retains their grip on the nation,
well ... who cares if people are thriving. </rant>

------
erikb
Ever since I've read the Foundation science fiction novels I wonder if there
are really political powers so cunning, that they increase the economy of an
enemy just to keep the government there struggling with their citizen. E.g.
does the UK support Hongkong to make trouble for the Mainland? Does Russia
sell stuff unhealthily cheap to the EU to keep everybody there fed and
arrogant? Why does the US not throw loads of satelite internet phones over
North Korea so that its citizen get access to western propaganda?

------
olivermarks
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_the_Democratic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_the_Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea)

As I understand it, the only countries left on the planet in control of their
own money supply are North Korea, Cuba & Iran.

------
meric
Before Kim Jong Un took power, people were protesting the government. These
days they fear him, while proclaiming "‘What has he done for us?". According
to Tao Te Ching, verse 17, Kim Jong Un is more capable than his father:

With the greatest leader above them,

people barely know one exists.

Next comes one whom they love and praise.

Next comes one whom they fear. <\-- Kim Jong Un

Next comes one whom they despise and defy. <\-- His father

When a leader trusts no one,

no one trusts him.

The great leader speaks little.

He never speaks carelessly.

He works without self-interest

and leaves no trace.

When all is finished, the people say

“We did it ourselves.” <\-- North Korean people

~~~
warent
Works without self interest?

~~~
meric
He's not at that level yet!

------
br_smartass
did I hear regime change?

------
known
NK should merge with China;

