How do the North Koreans equate the hereditary concept with Communism? It’s surely pure royalism. The Kim is dead, long live the Kim! Or don’t they consider themselves Communists? I get confused with all this Juchi stuff, I’m not sure whether that’s Marxist-Leninist or not.
But anyway, back to my muttons. Has there ever been any other Communist nation with hereditary rulers?
It’s not. Just a handy add-on (if you are in power, anyway).
I remember reading that hereditary readers are specifically against Communist doctrine. IANAC though.
Fidel Castro’s younger brother Raul has taken over the Presidency as well as the leadership of the communist party in Cuba. Fidel’s still alive, but barely, and he does have several sons, but apparently they’re not up to his standards, which is why he made Raul his heir
Some animals are more equal than others.
I doubt if they officially have hereditary rulers. It’s just that they realize that Junior Kim is such a great and glorious leader that no one else could possibly compare to him.
And you know how they know that? Because Senior Kim told them so, and he was so great that if he said so it must be true. Especially as he was alive and all-powerfull at the time he said so, so you made sure you agreed with him.
But I doubt if it’s an official doctrine.
A number of third-world countries have thinly disguised hereditary rulers. Off the top of my head - Indira Ghandi inherited from her dad, and tried to pass it to her sons if only they’d stay alive; The story goes that the Arab Spring in Egypt was as much a palace coup against Mubarak by the top military as a revolt from below - they did not want his son as a ruler. Pakistan - the Bhutto’s; father, daughter, son-in-law… There’s the Bushes, GHW and GW (and J?). The Argentine went through Peron and his second wife, Indonesia, Chicago, and now Justin Trudeau is making a play for it in Canada, etc.
Partly is the shadow effect, the child has the benefit of the influence and obligations of the parent, it solves the problem of succession that might otherwise turn vicious, the public at large recognizes the brand, etc.
IIRC, PRoK is as much about Juche(?) a local internal philosophy of self-reliance, than about orthodox Marxism. The ascendency of his heirs simply celebrates the virtually god-like nature of the founding Kim.
The children of China’s leaders haven’t ascended to high political power, but many of them have apparently been the beneficiaries of a great deal of nepotism.
It may have been different in the early days of Kim Il-sung’s regime, when sucking up to both the Russians and the Chinese was a major consideration, but the way North Korea has been governed, for a long lime now, owes little or nothing to Marxist principles (see notes 69 & 70 here). It really is not a Communist country (frankly, I do not think China is really either, but it still takes Marxism a lot more seriously than North Korea does).
Cuba is a much more plausible example of a country actually being run, to some degree, on Communist principles, so Raul’s taking over from Fidel is a better example of something like a hereditary principle operating in a Communist regime. However, is it not the case that Fidel is still nominally in charge? One may doubt whether Raul will keep control for long once Fidel actually dies.
It is plain enough that hereditary rulership is contrary to the spirit, even if not necessarily the letter, of Communist ideology. I would say that what has happened in Korea is just more evidence that they have hot been serious about Communism for a long time now.
Romania was probably going that route, but for the revolution of 1989 and execution of Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu before they could transfer power to their son Nicu.
I’m not sure the Castro brothers are a great example. Raul was a revolutionary from the start. He held independent commands during the revolution and regardless of who his brother was, would have been an important figure in the communist government. And of course he holds a great deal of his brother’s confidence. As one of the last living revolutionary he still holds a lot of personal sway and holds enough positions in his own right, I can’t imagine that anyone else would be a better position to take over when Fidel finally dies.
The only other Castro that has held government positions (IIRC) was Fidelito. And he was fired by Fidel after the Cuban Missile Crisis. There is no Castro that I’m aware of being groomed for leadership. In fact I’m at a loss to think of who is the likely successor to Raul would be. Jose Machado has many of Raul’s former offices… but he is in his 80s as well. Ibarra is in his 70s. As are del Toro and Batlle. Murillo maybe? At least he is in 50s. I’m just not conversant enough with Cuban politics to say who might take over.
Juche, aka 주체.
Does Cuba have a Politburo or Central Committee to select a successor when Raul dies or becomes incapacitated? If so, the transition should be relatively smooth. Communist countries fall, but not usually due to the death or removal of the head tyrant.
Prince Norodom Sihanouk was official (but actually puppet) head of state in Cambodia for a year after the Khmer Rouge took over.
Interestingly, he spent much of his years in exile in North Korea and China. So those guys were cool with giving safe harbor to a hereditary ruler. China was especially supportive of him. He was seen by the Chinese as the alternative to the later Vietnamese installed socialist government. And when that ended, he went back to being the figurehead ruler. If he had sided with the Vietnamese from the get-go, he probably would have been restored even earlier.
(He died just last month, and since his original rule started in 1941, he was one of the last heads of state, in some form, from WWII still alive.)
They have a vice president who, according to their constitution, is next in the line of succession. That post is chosen by a vote of the national assembly, which is an elected body.
The person in that post now is Jose Ramon Machado, who’at the age of 82 is a year older than Raul Castro. They’re not really engaging in what we’d call “long term planning” down there.
IIRC there was a brief period in Romania & Bulgaria where the Communists had taken power, but not not yet gotten around to staging a plebicsite to abolish the monarchy. In Bulgaria the Tsar was underage and a Communist regent was even appointed.
And the National Assembly President, Ricardo Alarcón, is 75.
It seems the Castro regime either has been less than dilligent about preparing for when the Revolution veterans move along, or rather has been too efficient in making sure benchwarmers do not get any ideas about speeding up their own rise. Of 14 current members of the Politburo, Wikipedia lists 10 born before 1945, and only 3 born under the revolutionary regime; they show of the 7 members of the Secretariat, 4 born before '45 and again two after 1960. So this is not so much a hereditary matter as it is one of keeping it among the veterans. Seems they believe only the Revolution’s own generation can be counted on having too much invested to compromise or trade off.
None of those are communist states, and Indira Gandhi didn’t “inherit” the premiership of India from her dad.
I’ve thought about this too, and I don’t know. Lots of countries have been communist, but most were communist for 30-50 years at the max. North korea has been communist for nearly 70 years. So many never had the opportunity to become hereditary dictatorships.
Plus North korea is more of a cult of personality than a communist nation. The recent constitution updates pretty much eliminated communism from the records.
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=20175
The real ideology of NK is more of a cult of personality fascist state rather than a communist one. I don’t know if that matters, but if communism is based on the concept of eventually overthrowing the capitalist class, increasing standards of living and a dictatorship of the proletariat, NK doesn’t seem to care about that stuff.
Most communist nations aren’t communist anyways since most of communist social engineering and economic policy don’t work. China and Vietnam have abandoned economic communism. NK is just using communism as a front for a kleptocratic, fascist cult of personality. I don’t know much about Laos.
Humour is lost on some…
This is true. Nehru was PM from 1947-64, IIRC; and Indira did not become PM until 1966, a full 2 years after her father died and ruled for another decade. She only lost the prime ministership then - temporarily - because she was foolish enough to call an election. Eventually she died in office - literally.
I was pointing out that the quasi-hereditary aspect of some less developed countries when it came to picking rulers. Communism has very little to do with it, the desire to elevate your offspring, combined with a strong control on the levers of power, has everything to do with it. Whether it`s explicit control of the government, or simply ‘The Party’ that pretty much is the government, is immaterial.
Neither did George W inherit; of course, if hed been unrelated to earlier royalty, hed have still won wouldn`t he? Presumably on his intellect and debating skills?