Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Kim Jong Un have all held largely different positions. All have had high levels in the WPK and sometimes government, but each was elected into their positions. The Kim family has outsized influence due to being seen as heroic figures, this is not a “dynasty” but normal electoral politics surrounding popular figures.
Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Kim Jong Un have all held largely different positions.
If we consider the title “Supreme Leader” to be understood as supreme leader of NK, they have all held that position, and only they have held that position. I know it’s been posthumous for the first two Kims, but it’s at least indicative. Has there been periods where the Kims have not had de facto power?
this is not a “dynasty” but normal electoral politics surrounding popular figures.
Hmm, normal? Are there many other examples of apparent inheritance of supreme leader titles for generations in electoral politics?
Sure, I just can’t come up with other places that has seen the same kind of elected dynasty, so I was hoping by “normal” you meant there were plenty of examples.
“Supreme Leader” is more of an honorific title, hence the posthumous designations.
I see. So the Kims have not been de facto leaders of DPRK for three generations?
There are plenty of other examples of family members of former leaders being elected. Happens all the time, but “dynasty” is only used against the DPRK. As far as being “de facto leaders,” they have held political power but not power over the entire system. The DPRK has a more distributed system of governance.
There are plenty of other examples of family members of former leaders being elected.
Sure, but among those examples DPRK is pretty extreme in its appearing like a dynasty, isn’t it? I at least don’t know any similarly extreme examples, but I’m happy to learn.
As far as being “de facto leaders,” they have held political power but not power over the entire system. The DPRK has a more distributed system of governance.
I’m not sure what you mean. Reading further it appears they’ve held dynastic control over WPK as general secretaries (as in only ever those three, each child taking over when the father died). Which is the only party to ever form a government. I realize they don’t control every single thing in DPRK personally of course, but it still looks a lot like a dynastic power regime.
Keiko Fujimori is a recent example, as was Bush, etc. You’re moving goalposts.
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.
Sure, but wouldn’t that mean that there are other examples that “appear” just as much or more as a dynasty, but is not presented that way? It’d be helpful if you could mention one, I can’t figure out any.
My country had three generations of a single family become Prime Minister, with a fourth on the way. Jawaharlal Nehru, his daughter Indira Gandhi (no relation to ‘the’ Gandhi), her son Rajiv Gandhi, and if they win the next election, his son Rahul Gandhi.
Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Kim Jong Un have all held largely different positions. All have had high levels in the WPK and sometimes government, but each was elected into their positions. The Kim family has outsized influence due to being seen as heroic figures, this is not a “dynasty” but normal electoral politics surrounding popular figures.
If we consider the title “Supreme Leader” to be understood as supreme leader of NK, they have all held that position, and only they have held that position. I know it’s been posthumous for the first two Kims, but it’s at least indicative. Has there been periods where the Kims have not had de facto power?
Hmm, normal? Are there many other examples of apparent inheritance of supreme leader titles for generations in electoral politics?
“Supreme Leader” is more of an honorific title, hence the posthumous designations.
As far as being normal, the DPRK pretty much is. It’s not some alien dynasty, it’s a socialist country under siege.
Sure, I just can’t come up with other places that has seen the same kind of elected dynasty, so I was hoping by “normal” you meant there were plenty of examples.
I see. So the Kims have not been de facto leaders of DPRK for three generations?
There are plenty of other examples of family members of former leaders being elected. Happens all the time, but “dynasty” is only used against the DPRK. As far as being “de facto leaders,” they have held political power but not power over the entire system. The DPRK has a more distributed system of governance.
Sure, but among those examples DPRK is pretty extreme in its appearing like a dynasty, isn’t it? I at least don’t know any similarly extreme examples, but I’m happy to learn.
I’m not sure what you mean. Reading further it appears they’ve held dynastic control over WPK as general secretaries (as in only ever those three, each child taking over when the father died). Which is the only party to ever form a government. I realize they don’t control every single thing in DPRK personally of course, but it still looks a lot like a dynastic power regime.
The DPRK “appears to be a dynasty” because it’s presented that way in all major western media.
As for occupying high positions in the WPK, the WPK itself isn’t the government.
Removed by mod
Keiko Fujimori is a recent example, as was Bush, etc. You’re moving goalposts.
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.
My country had three generations of a single family become Prime Minister, with a fourth on the way. Jawaharlal Nehru, his daughter Indira Gandhi (no relation to ‘the’ Gandhi), her son Rajiv Gandhi, and if they win the next election, his son Rahul Gandhi.