"The DPRK is a monarchy"

Firstly, I'd like to stress something. As those who find themselves to be well traveled may know, the DPRK is not the US. This may sound obvious, perhaps even insultingly so, but if this idea is not placed in the forefront of discussion around the DPRK, a systematic pattern of orientalism will ingrain itself into the discourse. It should not be supprising that there are many cultural and societal differences that arise from a nation of the DPRK's cultural and ideological character. Criticisms of the DPRK can, and in the spirit of Marxism should be made, but we must ensure that, as socialists, these criticisms do not veil a dagger of white-supremacist undertones beneath righteous outcry. Unfortunately, in addition to hyperbole, I've seen many self-identified leftists fall into this trap (of which I was once one).Two pieces of context before I address this "monarchy" silliness:1.) Kim Il-Sung was President from 1974 until his death in 1994. Legally, this position was the highest authority in the the government. When he died, however, the position was dissolved and three new positions were established. These were, in no particular order: Premier of the Cabinet, President of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK, and Chairman of the National Defense Commision (which would itself later be dissolved into the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK in 2016). Remember these for later!2.) Every five years, the DPRK has county, city, and provincial elections to the local people’s assemblies, as well as national ones to the Supreme People’s Assembly. Candidates are selected in mass meetings held under the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, which also organizes the political parties in the DPRK. If selected in the mass meetings, Citizens can run under these parties, or alternatively, they can run as independents. This way, vyers for office are chosen by the people, not by the party (which, as someone who witnessed the death of the USSR, I would usually find concerning given the extremely precarious geopolitical position the DPRK finds itself in, but it seems they have their shit together, so I welcome the democracy). As a result, the parliament in the DPRK presently consists of three separate parties: the Workers Party of Korea, the Korean Social Democratic Party, and the Chondoist Chongu Party (a religious party). When the actual election comes around, members of a party are given a ballot containing only the name of the candidate nominated for their party in the aforementioned mass-meeting. Independents have a similar process. The elections were designed as a fail-safe against any corruption of the democratic process which may have occured during the mass meetings. If uncorrupted, the results will show overwhelming support. If this is not the case, then the mass meetings failed to reach a consensus with popular support. To recap, as I have heard the fact that electoral ballots only contain one candidate be used disingenuously, the mass meetings are where the democratic process takes place, and the elections are where this process is checked for corruption.Back to the original point about monarchism:Neither Kim Jong-Il nor Kim Jong-Un, the God-Emporer-Patriarchs of our dynasty in question, have held or currently hold the position of Premier. Immediately after Kim Il-Sung, Hong Song-Nam held the position. There have been twelve holders in total, with the current being Kim Jae-Ryong.While I find ranking these positions on a power tier list to be unacademic, I will do so as I find it helpful in debunking this myth.Premier is the "second to top," if you will, of the DPRK's governing body.Likewise, neither Kim Jong-Il nor Kim Jong-Un have held or hold the position of President of the Presidium. Most of the position's existence, it's been held by Kim Yong-Nam. Recently (April 11th 2019), however, Choe Ryong-Hae was elected , likely due to Kim Yon-Nam being 91-years-old now.If the office of primier is considered second to top, President of the Presidium would be the office above it.What Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jon-Un have held is the position of Chairman of the National Defense Commission. This position is important due to the Songun policy of the DPRK, which essentially denotes a special importance to the military and its functions within the DPRK, which is due to, as you may have guessed, imperialist aggression and the threat of destruction that ever looms over the unoccupied sections of the Korean peninsula. So naturally, being materialists, the country has had to prioritise the military. And, tracing back to those components of Korean culture, the holder of such a position would be well-respected. This isn't some "great man" theory; it's just a respectful attitude. This is important to understand. It's not a vulgar, artificial cult of personality. There is a lot of reason to respect the Chairman of the National Defense Commission and those who work with them. After all, they are the one made responsible to manage the instrumental fight against imperialism, a threat needed to be watched daily by not just the government, but the people as well.Neither Kim Jong-Il nor Kim Jong-Un have been the legal heads of state. Both have held very crucial and very influential positions, but also, in a similar fashion, this is due to the social conditions and connections of the DPRK, and what these two figures represent for the DPRK. Neither have been the de facto totalitarian dictator that liberals love to parade.TL;DR: Kim Jong-Un has a lot of influence over the military and its strategic functions, but not so much over matters of state. He is absolutely not some despot with the power to do whatever he wants because people think he's a god or something. via /r/communism https://ift.tt/2T8kZn0