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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
Removed by mod