Many countries include ‘Democratic’ or ‘People’s’ in their names, even though they are not democratic and do not serve their people. Examples: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Lao People’s Democratic Republic People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria Democratic Republic of the Congo And German Democratic Republic (East Side) in 1949–1990. None of these states are democratic, power and wealth are concentrated in the hands of a small ruling elite. Who are they fooling with these names?
You must log in or # to comment.
Because authoritarian states aren’t going to call themselves authoritarian. They’re going to use the softest-sounding name they can to make themselves appear benevolent.
For example, from a historical perspective, Joseph Stalin isn’t generally considered a fascist, even though there are significant similarities between his regime and fascist regimes in terms of authoritarianism, political repression, state control, and cult of personality. Stalin was a self-proclaimed socialist who nonetheless created one of the most authoritarian states in human history.
There’s a whole other issue with objectively horrible people being allowed to self-identify as whatever they claim to be. From a historical perspective, that’s absolutely asinine. You determine what a regime or ideology is by examining its actions, institutions, and consequences, not simply by accepting the label its leaders give themselves. I’m sure Joseph Stalin considered himself a benevolent leader. History says otherwise.
Same reason it’s called “United States” and we all fucking hate each other.
For the same reason Nazi get many has socialism in theirs. It’s called doublespeak. It’s like when Congress passed the “patriot” act to void our constitutional rights. Nothing patriotic about that
I can’t speak for all nations but the Democratic Republic of the Congo was an actual democratic republic when it was named.
But it was too socialist for the US, who intervened with military force, executed the elected leader and installed a puppet dictator that was loyal to US corporate interests.
Looking it up now, Congo has removed Democratic from its name but still calls itself a Republic. A unitary executive appoints ministers, and a prime minister leads parliament. It does have multi-party elections, but, to quote Wikipedia, opposition parties are allowed, but are widely considered to have no chance of gaining power.
The current leader, Sassou Nguesso, is trying to change constitutional law so he can run another term.
Actually, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Congo are two separate countries that border each other.
Edit: Just to add to the confusion, there used to be more Republic of the Congos.
Looking it up now, Congo has removed Democratic from its name but still calls itself a Republic.
There’s two countries called congo, the democratic Republic of Congo and Republic of Congo. Both still exist today, there was no name change.
same reason america espouses freedom but then has 304830483048 laws that restrict every possible thing you can do other than go to work.
Its true when you see some legislation with freedom in the title you know they are about to take someones freedoms away.
to appear to be on the “left” when they are in the exact oppsoite.
Boy wait until you find out the “Patriot Act” was actually about the government spying on you. It’s like politics 101 to give things names that aren’t at all related, but sound good.
And what does it have to do with the subject of the post? How does it help the OP?
I’ll just go ahead and answer your question.
The Patriot Act has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism. In practice, it expanded government surveillance and law-enforcement powers in ways that raised serious constitutional, civil-liberties, and human-rights concerns.
It was called the Patriot Act because that’s an appealing name. Nobody is going to call something the Government Surveillance and Expanded Executive Powers Act and expect people to get excited about it. The name is part of the political optics.
You see the same thing with authoritarian governments naming institutions and policies things like “Democratic,” “People’s,” “National,” or “for the Protection of the Country.” The terminology is deliberately positive because governments understand that optics matter.
What I’ve never understood is what governments actually think their populations believe. At a certain point, everyone knows they’re playing the same political game. Governments are playing political chess against one another, politicians are managing their public image, and the population is largely treated as the audience rather than a participant.
The irony is that governments seem to assume people are too stupid to recognize the obvious propaganda. In reality, most people understand that a government calling something “patriotic,” “democratic,” or “for the people” doesn’t automatically make it any of those things.
The subject of the post is "why do authoritarian states have words like ‘democratic’ or ‘people’s’ when they are not actually democratic or for people? Yes? Would you agree with that?
Politics 101 is giving something a name that does not relate to the actual political thing you are doing. Naming a party, passing a bill, etc. The patriot act was an example i had off the top of my head.
Thought the connection was incredibly clear but I guess not.
Oh, it’s very clear. But you need to ask that type of question to drive engagement and feed the echo chambers. How else can users feel morally superior? And it’s far easier for users to respond than to actually do.
People just like to have a little fun sometimes.
Same reason nazis put socialist in name but promptly killed off socialists and trade unions.
There was a point where the National Socialist Party was actually socialist. But Hitler and his ilk saw a party with popular momentum, joined it, co-opted it, and betrayed the socialist ideals.
I have no idea where you got this from, but it’s totally false. They were never a socialist party. They had some prominent members who supported strong social programs but that doesn’t make them socialists.
Nope. There never was. They were always faar right. They from beginning were a nationalist group that despised democracy. Even before hitler joined them
Do you have any evidence for this, because I’ve studied history, and I’ve never read anything that indicated the “socialist” part was anything but a scammy populist virtue signal?
Is this Stephen miller or Anton lavey
Yes
Close enough. Fetterman. Sold himself as a hard working everyman, but he’s closer to Kid Rock.
Maybe he got some brain worms from RFK. Democrat in name only (DINO).
That term is kind of meaningless these days.
authoritarians employ the double speak because they are liars at the root of their beliefs
like NATO is an occupying army in the countries they have bases and not a defensive cooperative force
ml’s live in an alternate reality cult
to keep the peon population docile
Some have “United”.
And “States” when some are barely
Oh, they were “united”, under.
same reason why Trump’s admin team always does photo ops with 10 flags behind them; over compensation for the lack of what they claim to have alot of.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Empathy is weakness.
Hello Elmo, nice of you to join the conversation
This is the big one right now.
Similar reason why they were called National Socialists.
They had nothing to do with socialism.
Why does trump say he’s “the peace president”? Because they are all evil fucking liars trying to confuse dumb dumbs.
