From Monolithic Totalitarian to Collective Authoritarian Leadership? Performance-Based Legitimacy and Power Transfer in North Korea

Research Question and StructureThis article was written mostly before Kim Jong-il's death in December 2011. However, not only do our main points remain valid; the need for a long-term, systematic understanding of the political system of North Korea (formally the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, DPRK) and leadership succession has even grown amidst the current uncertainty. We thus discuss the background of the transfer of political power in North Korea and the related options in general, with a first outlook on Kim Jong-un and his leadership.Any leader needs first to gain and then to maintain a certain degree of power and legitimacy.1 We therefore first look at the issue of legitimacy itself and then explore the tradition of leadership, legitimacy, and power transfer in Korea in order to combine the general suggestions derived from the political scientist's perspective with the society-specific characteristics of the North Korean system. We look particularly closely at the sources of the personal legitimacy of Kim Jong-il, including the process of his own accession to power. Against this background, the current situation in North Korea and the ongoing power transfer to Kim Jong-un are analyzed.Leadership and LegitimacyAn important category for the classification of political systems is their mechanism for the legitimization of power. Max Weber suggested using the base for the claim to legitimacy as the sole criterion for classifying various types of rule.2 According to Merkel, the scope for achieving legitimacy ranges from what he calls "people's sovereignty" in a democracy to "mentality" (such as nationalism) in authoritarian and a "closed worldview" in totalitarian systems.3 Note that even totalitarian systems cannot rely only on repression but also need some kind of legitimization.In which category does North Korea belong? Authoritarian systems can be understood as severely limiting democratic principles, while the latter are completely abolished in totalitarian systems.4 Well-documented features such as restricted access to power, leadership by a single person, the power monopoly of one party, the regime's paternalistic claim to control its people's lives, the repression of opposition, and the existence of chuch'e as a closed worldview suggest that North Korea can indeed be classified as totalitarian. Merkel associates North Korea with the communist-totalitarian sub-type, although he also acknowledges parallels with "sultanistic-totalitarian" systems.5Other authors point at the changing nature of the North Korean system. Scobell classifies North Korea as an eroding totalitarian regime of the communist variety.6 In a similar vein, Silberstein argues that totalitarianism in North Korea exists but is fading, mainly because of the vanishing of the central planning system.7 Accordingly, if we want to explore the question of succession in North Korea, we are looking at the puzzle of power transfer in a totalitarian system -not in a monarchy.Bursens and Sinardet show that there are two interrelated sides to legitimacy. In addition to the expected outcomes, an important source of legitimacy seems to be that the decision-making process, including the selection of the leadership, follows approved rules.8 Democratic systems have developed a generally accepted procedure that constantly renews legitimacy through a continuous cycle of elections; Schumpeter argued that "competition for votes" was the defining characteristic of a democracy.9Such a procedure, however, is lacking in totalitarian systems, including the DPRK. But Steinberg argues that elections are by far not the only means to acquire political legitimacy. Importantly, he points at the fact that in addition to internal legitimacy, there is an external form such as recognition (de facto or de jure) of a political leader.10 The acquisition of power usually takes place only once in the lifetime of a leader. The perpetuation of legitimacy must therefore be based on the actual or perceived results of the leader's rule to a much higher degree than in a democratic system. …