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.
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.