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

Abstract

IntroductionObservers tend to label 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 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 context of Korean history and culture.3 An analysis of nature and evolution of DPRK's political system may provide important clues as to motivations, policy preferences, and Pyongyang regime's potential for conflict management.At outset it is important to ask: what is nature and scope of conflict? According to Niklas Swanstrom, Mikael Weissmann and Emma Bjornehed, a conflict entails perceived differences in positions between two or more parties at same moment in time.4 The conflict on Korean Peninsula is complex, multifaceted, concerns a number of different issue positions, and at least six parties. For purposes of this article, however, I will just identify what appears to have become critical in recent years: disposition of North Korea's nuclear program. While ongoing six-party talks involve North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan, China and United States, of North Korea's nuclear program boils down to a deep-seated conflict between Pyongyang and Washington. Baldly put, on one hand, United States has adamantly insisted that Pyongyang's nuclear program be completely, verifiably and irreversibly dismantled while on other hand North Korea has been just as adamant in insisting that it has 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 author believes that this potential will not be tapped without major changes in North Korea's political system. The primary attitude of North Korean regime is one of hard-core indoctrination and absolute information control, primary situation in North Korea is extreme militarization, and primary behavior of Pyongyang regime is mobilization. The persistence of this attitude, this situation, and this behavior appears to seriously hinder prospects for any meaningful conflict management and certainly precludes 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 communist variety.7 The DPRK appears to meet 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 means of production are publicly owned.8 Although some scholars consider North Korea to be something other than communist,9 closer examination reveals that DPRK is not radically different from other communist party-states.10North Korea also appears to meet 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 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, constant effort to mobilize state and society, and regime's militarization. …