431
Why do authoritarian states have 'Democratic' or 'People's' in their names? (thelemmy.club)
submitted 21 hours ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
170 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Yes but when you say leg of lamb, most people don't give a shit which leg you're referring to.

There are multiple sets of states that are united under a single national government and are part of the American continents (Mexico and Brazil, for example) but only one of them claims to be THE United States of America.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 17 hours ago

    Only one of them IS THE United States of America. That's how names work.

    Nothing anywhere says "There are no other states that are united in any geographic region that you can refer to as 'America'". That's just silly.

    For example: Mexico is Estados Unidos. I like how they actually refer to the US as EEUU to differentiate. See? It works. You can make things work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 19 hours ago (3 children)

    Was the USA the first set of "united states"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    In the Americas, and in the modern period yes, but the concept was not totally new. Switzerland was a kind of federal state since 1291: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Charter_of_1291

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    if you stick strictly to the name "united states" then yes, it's the first entity to name themselves this. later entities include the united states of belgium but they appear later (1790).

    however, the netherlands used the name "united provinces" and "(republic of the seven) united netherlands" from 1588, sooooo I guess it can count if you make your question broad?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 18 hours ago

    I suppose it was. Good point.

    Come to think of it, what bothers me isn't our name so much as the attitude of so many of my fellow citizens that the rest of the world is of no consequence. Our name puts a fine point on that narrow world view, regardless of whether it was intended that way.

    So yeah, I'd rather see the culture change than the name.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent