Imagine yourself as a tourist in the one-party state that the Republicans are dreaming of. Every branch of government in every state is run by the party. Elections are rigged, dissent is unpatriotic. But society would be "harmonious" and "unified."
What would this be like? Perhaps the North Koreans can help us understand. Some of their views are below the jump.
The following conversation about democracy occurred between Michael Breen---a journalist from the UK---and his North Korean tour guide during one of his visits to Pyongyang.
"What do you mean? They were elections and people could vote," he [the guide] said.
"But all the candidates were from the same party," I said.
"That's what elections are," he said.
"In some cases there was only one candidate," I said. "Also, everyone by law has to vote. No wonder they got a hundred per cent."
"Well, we have elections laws, like you have election laws in your country. They are our laws."
"But there are no opposition candidates."
"Why should there be opposition? We're not opposed to each other."
"Well, I mean a different viewpoint. Candidates from a different party."
"Why do you need different parties when the _ Party represents the people? Anyway, you can have different views in the same party."
"Yes, but---"
"Anyway, these were candidates all chosen by the * Leader."
"Well, there's your problem."
"What?"
"They couldn't take a different position from him. The * Leader would have them [imprisoned indefinitely without trial]."
"Only traitors are [imprisoned indefintely without trial]. You don't allow traitors in your country, do you?"
At this point another guide intervened and explained...that my lack of understanding was because ... we are not united.
It is extracted from pages 196-197 of
The Koreans: Who They Are, What They Want, Where Their Future Lies (trade paper edition). The book is a fascinating study of Korean culture and history, with a focus on the South.
To those who have grown up under Kim Il Sung and Kim Jung Il, an election with just one party is about unity. It's about harmony. It's a positive thing. Dissent is viewed as disloyalty to the leader and the nation. Since 9/11, the Republican party has had similar attitudes, especially about questioning the decisions of the rulers. This week's passage of the murder at will provision in the House is an omninous sign indeed. Section 102 of the Immigration Bill includes this amazing clause: "notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws" he determines necessary to construct barriers and fences.
Wiping away the rule of law is one bad sign. The cult of personality around George W. Bush is another. In his column of 2/13/04, Paul Krugman wrote
By my count, this year's budget contains 27 glossy photos of Mr. Bush. We see the president in front of a giant American flag, in front of the Washington Monument, comforting an elderly woman in a wheelchair, helping a small child with his reading assignment, building a trail through the wilderness and, of course, eating turkey with the troops in Iraq. Somehow the art director neglected to include a photo of the president swimming across the Yangtze River. It was not ever thus.
Bill Clinton's budgets were illustrated with tables and charts, not with worshipful photos of the president being presidential.
Snazzy uniforms (even Kim Jung Il-style jumpsuits), the personalization of the office of the President, and accusations that substantiative criticism of policy is an attack on the President's character.
Clearly, the U.S. is far, far away from the brutality and repression of North Korea. But everything starts somewhere.
Note: In the above quotation, "* Leader" was originally "Great Leader", "__ Party" was originally "Worker's Party", and I exchanged [imprisoned indefinitely without trial] for "shot" and "executed".