The Evolution of North Korea's Political System and Pyongyang's Potential for Conflict Management

IntroductionObservers tend to label the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) as a bizarre political system that can only be understood on its own terms. One respected analyst suggests that the DPRK might just be "the strangest political system in existence."1 Some observers argue that North Korea is a dangerous rogue state that is heavily armed, unpredictable and dangerous.2 Others argue that North Korea, while strange at first glance, becomes more comprehensible and less threatening in the context of Korean history and culture.3 An analysis of the nature and evolution of the DPRK's political system may provide important clues as to the motivations, policy preferences, and the Pyongyang regime's potential for conflict management.At the outset it is important to ask: what is the nature and scope of the conflict? According to Niklas Swanstrom, Mikael Weissmann and Emma Bjornehed, a conflict entails "perceived differences in issue positions between two or more parties at the same moment in time."4 The conflict on the Korean Peninsula is complex, multifaceted, concerns a number of different "issue positions," and at least six parties. For the purposes of this article, however, I will just identify what appears to have become the critical issue in recent years: the disposition of North Korea's nuclear program. While the ongoing six-party talks involve North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan, China and the United States, the issue of North Korea's nuclear program boils down to a deep-seated conflict between Pyongyang and Washington. Baldly put, on the one hand, the United States has adamantly insisted that Pyongyang's nuclear program be completely, verifiably and irreversibly dismantled while on the other hand North Korea has been just as adamant in insisting that it has the right to a nuclear program.5According to C.R. Mitchell, a conflict involves at least three aspects: attitudes, situation, and behaviors.6 This paper focuses on change and continuity in Pyongyang's political system rather than directly on conflict prevention or conflict management because the author believes that this potential will not be tapped without major changes in North Korea's political system. The primary attitude of the North Korean regime is one of hard-core indoctrination and absolute information control, the primary situation in North Korea is extreme militarization, and the primary behavior of the Pyongyang regime is mobilization. The persistence of this attitude, this situation, and this behavior appears to seriously hinder the prospects for any meaningful conflict management and certainly precludes the possibility of conflict resolution.Totalitarianism and Post-TotalitarianismThis paper argues that North Korea's political system is best understood as an eroding totalitarian regime of the communist variety.7 The DPRK appears to meet the basic criteria for an orthodox communist regime: it has a Leninist party that monopolizes political power while espousing a Marxist ideology ("socialism"), administers a centrally planned economy, and the means of production are publicly owned.8 Although some scholars consider North Korea to be something other than communist,9 closer examination reveals that the DPRK is not radically different from other communist party-states.10North Korea also appears to meet the following six defining characteristics of a totalitarian regime as identified by Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski: (1) an absolute dictator and mass party; (2) an ideology intent on totally transforming society; (3) a condition of terror; (4) a monopoly of the coercive instruments; (5) a centrally planned economy; and (6) a monopoly of mass communication.11 A totalitarian regime strives to control every aspect of society. This type of regime requires an "enemy" to rationalize its perpetual war-footing mode. A clearly identifiable enduring threat is necessary to justify its repressive system of controls, the constant effort to mobilize the state and society, and the regime's militarization. …