Francis Fukuyama triumphantly trumpeted Western liberal democracy as the end stage of humankind’s ideological evolution and the final form of human government. Human societies over the course of the 20th century have experienced dramatic decline in warfare, extended longevity with better health, and accumulated more material wealth than any other epoch in human history. Rightly or wrongly, these progresses alongside other improvements in the general human condition have been attributed to the rise of liberal democracies around the world, results of its superior attributes relative to non-democracies.
But vast numbers of people do not live in democracies. Non-democracies, such as North Korea, constitute more than 40 percent of countries and people around the world. Apart from the intrinsic merit of liberal democracies in themselves, if it is true that liberal democracies are vastly superior to non-democracies, it is only reasonable to expect them to have very different public policies from non-democracies. Yet, there have been controversial studies that suggest otherwise . In terms of economic and social spending, non-democracies do not tax their citizens more or spend any less money on education than liberal democracies.
This does not mean that human societies should turn their backs on liberal democracies and become indifferent to some of the gross violations of human rights and decency in non-democracies, especially in North Korea. Non-democracies like North Korea spend large sums of money to limit political entry, spend huge sums of money on censorship and the military to hold on to power, wasteful and morally deficient when judged using our democratic values. Yet, these studies that question the difference in public policies between democracies and non-democracies should give some pause to the unbridled trumpet of liberal democracies. They certainly do not absolve the violent actions of the neo-conservatives who have sullied the name of liberal democracies in their wanton imposition of democracy by military means. Democratic crusades for liberal democracies seem less justified if it can be demonstrated that a new democratic regime is unlikely to implement public policies that are significantly different from the old. Until the recent Obama administration came to power, North Korea was considered part of the “Axis of Evil” by the Bush administration. The military option to wipe out North Korea was never off the table.
Given these implications, it is worth investigating whether North Korea has public policies that are very different from liberal democracies. To what extent does North Korea differ in their social and economic policies when compared to liberal democracies? At the very least, understanding how their public polices differ from liberal democracies facilitate greater understanding of North Korea’s priorities and values. Similarities in public policies may allow liberal democracies to better address ethical dilemmas when considering more foreign aid and assistance to North Korea. And similarities in public policies may contribute to the perception that North Korea is not so different from liberal democracies, changing long-held views that collaboration is inconceivable, thus allowing more latitude for new common ground.
