Sorry, I tried to be clear from the start about what I meant by dynastic inheritance:
inheritance means that a family member takes over when the current ruler dies, and rules for the rest of their life (or until they abdicate).
This applies to DPRK (and monarchies), but not to Bush or Fujimori. I think it’s an important distinction which puts DPRK outside the normal.
As for the DPRK government, government positions are not the same as party positions. Head of WPK is not a government position. DNC membership, for example, is not the same as government positions even when the DNC controls the majority.
True. But in communist countries, the general secretary of the party is usually the de facto leaders of the country, wouldn’t you say? Xi Jinping is general secretary, as was Stalin.
It seems, more than anything, you’ve added a rather arbitrary set of characteristics that makes very little material difference in order to label the DPRK a “dynasty,” a term that has negative connotations, despite it being pretty similar to other countries. Especially when we factor in siege, and intense sanctions. As for the general secretary having power, this is true, but it isn’t the same as being the “de facto leader.” For many characteristics, it can be seen as such, but again, the DPRK has more distributed governance than, say, the US. Thus, “supreme leaders” have often less authority than US presidents.
Sorry, I tried to be clear from the start about what I meant by dynastic inheritance:
This applies to DPRK (and monarchies), but not to Bush or Fujimori. I think it’s an important distinction which puts DPRK outside the normal.
True. But in communist countries, the general secretary of the party is usually the de facto leaders of the country, wouldn’t you say? Xi Jinping is general secretary, as was Stalin.
It seems, more than anything, you’ve added a rather arbitrary set of characteristics that makes very little material difference in order to label the DPRK a “dynasty,” a term that has negative connotations, despite it being pretty similar to other countries. Especially when we factor in siege, and intense sanctions. As for the general secretary having power, this is true, but it isn’t the same as being the “de facto leader.” For many characteristics, it can be seen as such, but again, the DPRK has more distributed governance than, say, the US. Thus, “supreme leaders” have often less authority than US presidents.
Exactly right:
Yep! Seeing it laid out graphically helps drive the point home.