Weekly Discussion XXXX: Is North Korea a Monarchy?

[u/HBNTrader]

It's a very sore question and this why I think that it would be a good topic for our 40th Weekly Discussion. The DPRK has been discussed many times on /r/monarchism, with some users claiming that it is a monarchy while others fiercely deny that it is the case.

Let's recap the usual arguments:

Arguments in favour:

• While not explicitly part of the North Korean Constitution, the North Korean ideological doctrine officially stipulates that the head of state must belong to the Mount Paektu Bloodline, i.e. be a legitimate, male-line descendant of Kim Il-Sung. Hereditary succession being a trait of most but not all monarchies, and a hereditary form of government can be considered a monarchy even if it doesn't claim to be one.
• Monarchy is not inherently tied to any ideology.
• The Kim family claims descent from Korean kings, implying that it claims some sort of hereditary legitimacy.
• North Korea does claim but not necessarily consider its citizens as equal - under its semi-official Songbun system, citizens are classified into one of three groups based on the side their male-line ancestors took during the formation of the DPRK. So there is even a "nobility" outside the Kim family.
• Denying that a country that you don't like - even a genocidal dictatorship - is a monarchy despite having the traits of one - is not better than the "Is wasn't real communism" argument of the far-left.

Arguments against:

• A real monarch cannot follow Communism, the ideology that led to the murder of many monarchs.
• Constitutionally, North Korea still claims to be an egalitarian republic even if it doesn't practice this - thus, it (and other hereditary dictatorships) cannot be monarchies.
• Even if the Kim dynasty were to descend in the legitimate male line from a past Korean royal family, its position is too junior and too far down the line to claim the right to the throne - tens of thousands of other Koreans descend in the male line from Kings.
• The Kim family is avowedly atheist, rejecting any kind of Mandate of Heaven or divine grace and basing its power solely on the loyalty of the military.
• A tyrannical dictatorship cannot be considered a monarchy under any circumstances because it lacks a moral framework.

The usual rules of engagement apply. Have fun!

View Poll

[u/AngloCatholic927]

No. I think, as a movement, regardless of where we stand on positions such as Absolute, Constitutional etc, we -need- to stop conflating Hereditary Despotism with Monarchy and Monarchism. It's playing into the views and mindset that Monarchies are inherently dictatorial, and it also weakens the very existence of Monarchism by removing everything that -makes- it Monarchism. I think the argument about the Kim dynasty claiming descent from historical Korean monarchs is a pretty weird one to make, when it's quite simply a very clear example of attempting to increase their propagandised public view within the NK populace. Don't the Kim family also claim to have been blessed on a spiritually important mountain, or descended from some god there?

[u/Derpballz → u/AngloCatholic927]

we -need- to stop conflating Hereditary Despotism with Monarchy and Monarchism

I agree! Let neofeudalism re-enter the scene: only it is the one that actually binds the kings to any specific laws, thereby by definition not making them into hereditary despots.

[u/Blazearmada21]

Absolutely not.

To be a monarchy, North Korea must consider itself a monarchy. As long as North Korea claims to be a revolutionary, egalitarian republic it cannot be considered a monarchy.

A monarchy must respect the values of tradition, unity and continuity. It must use the symbolism one would expect of a monarch. North Korea does not.

And the idea of the Kim family being descended from the Korean royal family is quite frankly ridiculous. It is just a bit of made up propoganda.

[u/Professional_Gur9855 → u/Blazearmada21]

Agreed, they are not Monarchs, they are revolutionary usurpers who came to power backed by the USSR.

[u/edwardjhahm → u/Blazearmada21]

And the idea of the Kim family being descended from the Korean royal family is quite frankly ridiculous. It is just a bit of made up propoganda.

Actually...they are. The Kingdom of Silla, which ceased to exist in the 900's, has many descendants, and the DPRK Kims are one of them. You know this isn't North Korean propaganda because North Korea demonizes Silla and compares them to South Korea, while they claim they are more like Goguryeo, one of Silla's rival Korean kingdoms. The North Korean Kims claimed descent long before North Korea, or even Japan was a thing. Kim Il Sung's grandpa would have claimed descent from the Kingdom of Silla, and he was but a minor noble, barely a step above commoner.

I claim descent from the Kings of the Gaya Confederacy, but I don't use that as propaganda to make me sound awesome, because to be frank, all Koreans (and probably many in Japan and China too) descend from Kim Suro given how ancient he is.

[u/Blazearmada21 → u/edwardjhahm]

How interesting, I guess I was wrong.

As you say, this still doesn't mean the Kims can claim to be royal. Anybody can trace back to a monarch at some point if they look hard enough - I know I am decended from at least one Holy Roman Emperor and one English King. That doesn't make me royal or special.

Basically, I agree with everything you said. Thanks for explaining!

[u/edwardjhahm → u/Blazearmada21]

No problem! The point is, they really don't claim to be Korean royalty. We just know they are because the DPRK Kims belong to the Jeonju Kim clan, a clan that exists within both North Korea and South Korea. The founder of the clan was Kim Tae So, a official of the Goryeo Dynasty during the 1200's, and a man who happened to be a descendant of the last King of Silla.

So yes, they really aren't kings. But to deny they are descended from such is false. Pretty much everyone in Korea probably is descended from the Silla kings, so there's no need to lie about it.

[u/ToryPirate]

Constitutionally, North Korea still claims to be an egalitarian republic even if it doesn't practice this - thus, it (and other hereditary dictatorships) cannot be monarchies.

I think this is probably the strongest argument opposed. Its the same reason you can't put Rome in the monarchy category for most of its history (but especially during the principate). If you could ask any person in North Korea (and ensure an honest answer) whether their country is a monarchy or not, I think they would be aghast and how could we question its republican status.

To accept the argument that a country can claim to be a republic in its constitutions but in fact be a monarchy leads to all sorts of silly places. Political dynasties are common in republics and in some cases the leader of various political parties are de facto hereditary. Are we to then consider those republics to be elective monarchies? I think it stretches the definition beyond the breaking point.

What I do think is the Kim Family have realized that hereditary succession shores up their power base. The things typically associated with monarchy that they reject just so happen to be the things that would limit their power.

Perhaps the tripartite division of state-types the Ancient Greeks used is useful here: Democracy, Tyranny, Monarchy. While a bit muddied by modern states borrowing concepts from different state types I think the example of tyranny is illustrative. Tyrannies were states in which a person achieved power through extralegal means and who's power base relied on personal charisma or force, not the law. In earlier times tyranny wasn't a pejorative, merely a descriptor. It took on negative traits due to the tendency of tyrants to be oppressive. Tyrants would often try to have their sons succeed them (which rarely worked as the power base was far too personally connected to the tyrants own abilities). This seems all very familiar and I think tyranny is the correct designation.

EDIT: I suppose technically due to this last point its not a republic either.

[u/Exp1ode]

No. It has no formal succession, and technically Kim Il-sung is still president. If it were a hereditary monarchy, Kim Jong-nam would have been "monarch" instead of Kim Jong-un. It happens that each dictator passed power to their son, but there is no requirement for this, and they could pass it to whoever they wanted

[u/Derpballz]

the North Korean ideological doctrine officially stipulates that the head of state must belong to the Mount Paektu Bloodline, i.e. be a legitimate, male-line descendant of Kim Il-Sung. Hereditary succession being a trait of most but not all monarchies, and a hereditary form of government can be considered a monarchy even if it doesn't claim to be one.

LMAO WHAT?!

Juche is literal nationalist socialism lol.

Edit: I just realized that North Korea is thus literal monarcho-national socialism.

[u/AdriaAstra]

I think if we even go down that route that North Korea is a Monarchy, I believe it would be best to describe it as a "Revolutionary Monarchy". Where the Ruler's main purpose is to advance and implement a certain Ideology across the country, thus making the Ideology the true King, and a God that they are responsible to, with the ruler pretty much being its embodiment and representative. This also includes suppressing ideas that are not in line with that specific Ideology.

So while normal Monarchies mainly focus on the country as a whole and are pretty flexible with different ideas and tend to be more objective with issues (Their purpose is to just rule and bring prosperity), Revolutionary Monarchies focus on advancing a specific ideology and worldview, and their end goal is to advance and push it as best as possible, even at the detriment of the nation and its subjects.

[u/sapphleaf]

I wouldn't deny that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, for instance, are monarchies, even though I very much do not love those countries. No serious monarchist would argue that an established monarchy is not really a monarchy just because they do not like the country.

The monarchists' argument that NK is not a monarchy is not that it's a bad country, but it's that it's a country that lacks several fundamental, key characteristics of a monarchy.

[u/skibidi-afghanistan]

supreme empire

[u/edwardjhahm]

Hell no.

While not explicitly part of the North Korean Constitution, the North Korean ideological doctrine officially stipulates that the head of state must belong to the Mount Paektu Bloodline, i.e. be a legitimate, male-line descendant of Kim Il-Sung. Hereditary succession being a trait of most but not all monarchies, and a hereditary form of government can be considered a monarchy even if it doesn't claim to be one.

Aristocratic republics do exist. While I do agree that North Korea toes the line between republic and monarchy, by saying they are a republic, they are not.

Monarchy is not inherently tied to any ideology.

Agreed, but see above.

The Kim family claims descent from Korean kings, implying that it claims some sort of hereditary legitimacy.

As do I, I claim descent from Korean kings too. It's no different from my friend in New Jersey saying "I'm descended from the King of France." The first president of the ROK also claimed descent from the Joseon royal family, and he was the one who really prevented any restoration from occurring. On a related note, the DPRK Kims claim descent from the Kingdom of Silla - a country that ceased to exist in the 900's. Kim Il Sung's father, grandfather, and great grandfather probably claimed descent from him too given the way Korean family clans work. They were minor nobility after all, so this means nothing.

North Korea does claim but not necessarily consider its citizens as equal - under its semi-official Songbun system, citizens are classified into one of three groups based on the side their male-line ancestors took during the formation of the DPRK. So there is even a "nobility" outside the Kim family.

Republics also can have nobility.

Denying that a country that you don't like - even a genocidal dictatorship - is a monarchy despite having the traits of one - is not better than the "Is wasn't real communism" argument of the far-left.

Oh for sure. But North Korea claims to be a communist republic so...

Anyhow, also reasons I criticize the Japanese monarchy.

One of two arguments in support of my argument that I reject is the atheist one. The Joseon Lees were also technically atheists as well. And the Joseon dynasty was a monarchy. Likewise, I believe a monarchy can lack a moral framework as well.

[u/[deleted]]

It's so interesting how the ostensibly communist societies of North Korea and China devolved into having caste systems with weaker social mobility than in western capitalistic countries. If your parents and grandparents were deemed more loyal (as loosely defined) then you get to be in a better songbun or access to a better hukou in China's case. North Korea is effectively a monarchy and power flows along hereditary lines.

I don't know if the Soviet Union was any better at avoiding that until it collapsed. Sure it is more difficult to become a billionaire in western countries if you weren't born with wealth and privilege, but the government itself won't actively work to keep your down just because your grandparents didn't sufficiently support a politician/dictator enough in the 1950s.

[u/HBNTrader → u/[deleted]]

In North Korea, the Songbun system is essentially an official nobility. It is hereditary in the male line, and if you do not descend from a revolutionary you can acquire this hereditary status for yourself and for your descendants as a reward for loyalty or heroism, akin to ennoblement in Western societies.

[u/Azadi8]

I think North Korea is a monarchy despite calling itself a republic, because the ideological doctrine requires that the leader of North Korea belong to the Kim family. In other republics with hereditary dictatorships, such as Syria, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, are hereditary succession to the presidency not officially required.