Introduction
With different forms of authoritarian rule, these political forms of North Korea and China offer matters for exciting comparative study. The extreme form of autocracy found in North Korea is entirely dynastic, while the country as a whole isolates itself tightly from the outside and is controlled from above. But, under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China has an authoritarian rule with economic liberalization. This is a more complicated, flexible political structure. In fact, both countries are members of the brotherhood of authoritarianism. But there’s a huge difference between how they organize their domestic political structure, how they run and regulate the media, and the treatment given to human rights matters; economic systems and foreign policies are quite different. [1]. This paper will deconstruct these differences to distinguish the different models by which authoritarian rule is established in North Korea and China. The paper will defend extensively and examine the two countries’ political structures, human rights practices, international relations, and economic practices to unveil the different strategies adopted by each country.
Literature Review
Scholars of authoritarian regimes have provided the public with enthralling glimpses into the lives of countries such as North Korea and China. They have deftly used all sorts of theories, concepts, and controversies to resolve the intricacies present in these different political systems. Some of the distinctive contributions to ruling in North Korea and China are listed as follows.
Dukalskis and Lee (2020) examine this complex interplay between everyday nationalism and authoritarian rule in North Korea. This study reminds people of the way in which nationalism validates the regime. By studying how ordinary life cultivates nationalist sentiments, the authors reveal one aspect of the machinery that allows the authoritarian regime to remain stable.[2]. It illuminates the intertwined relationship of official stories and popular allegiance in these types of environments.
Kriebitz and Max (2022) developed a conceptual model for measuring foreign direct investment liberalization in communist countries such as China, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam. In such political contexts, their work has a lot of significance for economic policies. The study considers different forms of economic opening up and speculates as to whether there are repercussions for political stability and the participation of the state in the economy. One can see that economic dynamics are essential for understanding the form of authoritarian governance. [3].
Mao (2021) compares political institutions, state capacity, and crisis management in China and South Korea, providing a prism through which to observe the firmness of authoritarian regimes amid times of turbulence. [4]. The research explores how different political organizations affect states ‘s efficacy in handling and overcoming crises. Mao’s work offers a comparative study of crisis governance. It thus reminds individuals how adaptable and enduring authoritarian systems prove to be in times of testing.
Mahdavi and Ishiyama (2020), by focusing on North Korea, examine the fissures within the inner workings of dictatorships. This study offers a glimpse of the complex power structures of authoritarian regimes. It shows how elites not only shape but also maintain authoritarian rule. Such an understanding helps us to understand the internal workings that drive the stability of such political systems. [5].
Malesky (2021) argues that a detailed comparison between authoritarian regimes, China and Vietnam being examples, indicates that precise analyses are required. This method is key to unlocking the complex mechanisms that make up political systems. Malesky’s effort provides helpful direction to the researcher, making it apparent to us all that detailed comparative studies help one to understand the many facets of authoritarian rule. [6].
Dukalskis and Gerschewski’s (2020) study of the ideological responses of communist regimes to a post-communist era brings additional perspective to our understanding of how authoritarian states respond to external change. The study examines the complex and subtle ideological reactions of regimes and the various methods used to maintain control in the changing geopolitical environment.
Kong’s (2021) study of how China understands North Korea’s readiness to reform and the effects of China’s policy toward North Korea helps us to grasp how two authoritarian states interact. The research in this paper also points to the close relationship between political behavior around the region. Moreover, it demonstrates that one authoritarian regime’s policies can affect another’s[7].
Although it is not explicitly focused on North Korea and China, Diamond’s (2021) comparative institutional feature of democratic regression constitutes a theoretical framework for studying challenges facing authoritarian regimes. Diamond’s work provides a useful lens for placing broader developments in authoritarian governance in a larger perspective, bringing out what is common and what is distinct across different political circumstances. [8]. To sum up, the complex body of work on authoritarian regimes, as illustrated by these examples, provides a panoramic picture of political systems in North Korea and China. Scholars use different methods and conceptual tools to unlock the mysteries of these regimes, from which the results enrich our comparative understanding of them.
III. Methodology
This study research was based on looking into recent books to learn about the complexities of leaders controlling North Korea and China. The study plan was created by carefully looking into various studies, government papers, and scholarly reports. This gave helpful information about the political aspects of both countries. A strong study was done to find and check out what previous authors have written about dictator rule, mostly focusing on North Korea and China.
Data Collection
The main information for this study was taken from reliable and recent academic journals, books, and reports. The study also analyzed important documents and peer-reviewed journals from credible sources and media sites such as Google Scholar. This helped to give more understanding about what different authors think or believe.
Data Analysis
The study of recent books was done by looking closely at their meaning. This enabled the study to find important ideas, the different ways the ideas and leadership concepts repeat, and the changes happening with them. This method helped to understand deeply the similarities and differences in the political systems of North Korea and China.
Findings.
Political Structure and Leadership
When judged from the standpoint of the political structure, there is actually an authoritarian regime in both North Korea and China, although the architectures of their political arrangements are different. The Kim dynasty commands North Korea, in which political power is concentrated within the ruling family and runs a highly centralized system. The political organization is centered around the Supreme Leader, who has unrestricted power over the government and military. [9]. However, China’s political structure, though still under the direct rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is inherently more institutionalized. A collective leadership model prevails under the CCP, which the General Secretary leads, but top party officials share power, creating a more diversified decision-making body.
In North Korea, the role of leadership is of paramount importance and is intertwined with a personality cult surrounding the ruling Kim family. The Supreme Leader’s power spills over from the political realm, acquiring a semi-religious aura that defines the ideological outlook of the entire nation. The family lineage plays an important role in North Korea’s power structure. [10]. In all cases, the dynastic rule was passed down from father to son. However, China’s leadership structure changes periodically through Party Congresses. Although the General Secretary takes a central position, the process of making decisions involves the consultation and deliberation of top party officials. This encourages a more collective and institutionalized decision-making approach.
North Korea’s consolidation and retention of political power depend heavily on strict control of information, ideological indoctrination, and a pervasive surveillance apparatus. This tenet of loyalty to the Supreme Leader is emphasized by the ruling regime, leaving a climate of fear and allegiance. In China, political power is concentrated in the hands of the party through its control over elections, the military, and the economy. [11]. The CCP uses economic success, nationalism, and social stability to justify its rule, thus maintaining political control.
In both countries, the preservation of political power means suppressing dissent and the narrowing of political pluralism, and here, too, the use of propaganda is strategic. The theme, however, is the preservation of a centralized authority that subordinates all other institutions to ensure the continuance of the regime. The ways in which this is done may vary. The differences between the comparative analyses of political structures and leadership styles in North Korea and China show how authoritarianism takes root and becomes entrenched in each land.
State-run Media and Propaganda
Understanding authoritarian governance in North Korea and China requires understanding the role of state-controlled media in shaping public opinion. The media is particularly valuable in North Korea as an instrument for the regime to demand ideological compliance and loyalty to the ruling Kim dynasty. The state strictly controls all types of media, and all information is consistent with the government’s narrative. Most media outlets in North Korea are, in fact, propaganda organs, mouthpieces for glorifying the Supreme Leader and propagating the regime’s ideology.[12]. Compared to citizens, however, the media environment is extremely highly controlled and censored. Exposure to external influences and alternative perspectives is limited.
In China, the state has considerable authority over the media, and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses a very advanced system of censorship and propaganda. Although China has gone through a process of media liberalization, in particular on the economic front, political discourse remains strictly controlled. Censorship mechanisms include the Great Firewall, which controls information online and blocks access to content it deems sensitive or critical of the regime. [13]. Also, state-run media serve to popularize official stories, strengthen party ideology, and shape public opinion.
Media control has a profound effect on political stability and people’s perceptions in both countries. The tightly controlled media forms in North Korea allow the regime to suppress dissent and control the narrative so as to maintain internal stability. The lack of competing sources of information cultivates a feeling of isolation and reduces the possibility of internal challenges to the ruling authority. [14]. In China, state-run media constitutes an important means of validating the CCP’s rule and maintaining social stability. Propaganda concerns itself with creating a favorable image for the party, engendering a sense of national pride, and suppressing unrest. However, the problems that brought about the digital age have also meant that Chinese citizens are increasingly aware of alternative narratives, nullifying the effectiveness of traditional propaganda techniques.
Human Rights and Political Repression
Looking at human rights situations in North Korea and China side by side reveals stark differences in the nature and extent of violations within the two authoritarian regimes. North Korea, still so dominated by extreme political repression, subjects dissent and the population to systematic control. People are subjected to severe restraints over their most basic freedoms, and anything affiliated with the regime in any way is seen as a threat, warranting severe punishment, such as forced labor camps or extrajudicial executions. [15]. The all-pervasive system of state surveillance in North Korea creates an air of fear that renders any political expression impossible.
Although political repression and surveillance abound in China, their scope and severity are different from those in North Korea. The Chinese government uses legal means, censorship, and digital surveillance to suppress dissent and restrict information. Human rights defenders and religious minorities come under restrictions as well, though the methods are often more subtle than the obvious repression practiced in North Korea. International reactions to human rights in North Korea and China are different. There is widespread condemnation of North Korea, which perpetrates heinous violations of human rights, with international organizations and governments constantly leveling acute criticisms. [16]. By contrast, China’s economic and geopolitical power has modulated outside reactions, as several countries are reluctant to criticize China’s human rights record publicly. However, the repercussions of these human rights abuses go beyond purely domestic concerns to influence every aspect of diplomatic relations, trade agreements, and the international image of the two countries. The comparative analysis highlights the intricate dance of human rights, political oppression, and international responses, all under the umbrella of authoritarian governance.
Economic Systems
A comparison between the economic systems of North Korea and China shows just how different their approaches are–and the results. North Korea’s economic system is one of extreme state control and isolationism. The government highly regulates the economic areas, and the country has little interaction with the global economy. This isolationist policy, coupled with an emphasis on military expenditures, has led to economic stagnation and massive poverty. [17].
On the other hand, China has experienced thoroughgoing economic reforms, transforming from a system of central planning to a market system. The Chinese government has gradually opened up major sectors step-by-step, attracting foreign investment and promoting growth. Private and state enterprises simultaneously exist, forming a mixed economic structure. Despite this, rapid economic development in China has played its part in keeping political stability, with improved living standards being experienced by a large portion of the populace. Nevertheless, the economic successes have also seen the rise of socio-economic disparities and challenges to environmental sustainability. The relative comparison highlights the complex relationship between economic systems and development paths and the effect this has on the political stability of authoritarian regimes.
International Relations
A comparison between the foreign relations strategies of North Korea and China reveals differing trains of thought based on geopolitical considerations and regional dynamics. Because of its isolationist stance, North Korea is often provoked, developing its nuclear weapons and so forth, making relations with the international community increasingly tense. Due to the regime’s use of brinkmanship and incalculable diplomatic gambits, there have been periods of exaggerated tension and sudden diplomatic breakthroughs. [18].
Meanwhile, China has adopted a more aggressive but realistic foreign policy. With its economic muscle, China creates strategic partnerships and alliances but has a low-key, non-threatening image. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is a concrete manifestation of its economic diplomacy, building relationships through infrastructure. Their domestic politics are greatly affected by the international relations of both nations. North Korea’s position is also one of complete isolation. [19]. In fact, the narrative of self-reliance reinforced by NK’s pariah status actually emphasizes resilience in the face of external threats. However, China’s interaction with the international community is directly related to its economic development, impacting domestic credibility and the Chinese Communist Party’s story of a soaring country on the world stage. This comparative analysis points out how strategies for foreign relations help shape the political scenes of North Korea and China.
Conclusion
To sum up, the examinations of North Korea’s and China’s authoritarian regimes have illuminated different types of political systems, media control, human rights, economic systems, and international relations. Differences in leadership dynamics, state-controlled media, economic policies, and foreign relations show the great complexity and differentiation within authoritarian governance in these countries. It was the thesis that, despite commonalities, the different ways and results in each country illuminate the diversity of authoritarian rule. My paper recommends that further research explore the changing impact of technical progress on the control of media and the accommodating tactics adopted by these regimes. Also, analyzing the conditions required for sustainable economic development and investigating what impact successful and unsuccessful economic development can have on political stability and the changing nature of international relations can further deepen understanding of the political environments in both North Korea and China.
Bibliography
Dukalskis, Alexander, and Junhyoung Lee. “Everyday nationalism and authoritarian rule: A case study of North Korea.” Nationalities Papers 48, no. 6 (2020): 1052-1068. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexander-Dukalskis-2/publication/340950999_Everyday_Nationalism_and_Authoritarian_Rule_A_Case_Study_of_North_Korea/links/610be32c0c2bfa282a2414ab/Everyday-Nationalism-and-Authoritarian-Rule-A-Case-Study-of-North-Korea.pdf
Diamond, Larry. “Democratic regression in comparative perspective: scope, methods, and causes.” Democratization 28, no. 1 (2021): 22-42. https://copese.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Democratic-regression-in-comparative-perspective-scope-methods-and-causes.pdf
Gallo, Ernesto. “Three varieties of Authoritarian Neoliberalism: Rule by the experts, the people, the leader.” Competition & Change 26, no. 5 (2022): 554-574. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10245294211038425
Kong, Tat Yan. “How China views North Korea’s readiness to reform and its influence on China’s North Korea policy in the post-Cold War era.” The Pacific Review 34, no. 1 (2021): 85-112. https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/31413/1/PacRev_2019_Kong_mss_FINAL.pdf
Kriebitz, Alexander, and Raphael Max. “Foreign direct investment liberalization in communist regimes: a theoretical model based on the comparison among China, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam.” Political Studies Review 20, no. 3 (2022): 456-474. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/14789299211020911
Mao, Yexin. “Political institutions, state capacity, and crisis management: A comparison of China and South Korea.” International Political Science Review 42, no. 3 (2021): 316-332. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192512121994026
Mahdavi, Paasha, and John Ishiyama. “Dynamics of the inner elite in dictatorships: Evidence from North Korea.” Comparative Politics 52, no. 2 (2020): 221-249. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paasha-Mahdavi/publication/335379798_Dynamics_of_the_Inner_Elite_in_Dictatorships_Evidence_from_North_Korea/links/5ecd4e73299bf1c67d2009c0/Dynamics-of-the-Inner-Elite-in-Dictatorships-Evidence-from-North-Korea.pdf
Malesky, Edmund J. “Enhancing research on authoritarian regimes through detailed comparisons of China and Vietnam.” Problems of Post-Communism 68, no. 3 (2021): 163-170. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10758216.2020.1865822
[1] Kong et al., “How China views North Korea’s readiness to reform and its influence on China’s North Korea policy in the post-Cold War era,” 89.
[2] Dukalskis et al., “Everyday nationalism and authoritarian rule: A case study of North Korea,” Nationalities Papers 48, no. 6 (2020), 1058.
[3]Kriebitz and Max, “Foreign direct investment liberalization in communist regimes: a theoretical model based on the comparison among China, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam,” Political Studies Review 20, no. 3 (2022), 464.
[4] Mao, “Political Institutions, State Capacity, and Crisis Management: A Comparison of China and South Korea,” International Political Science Review 42, no. 3 (2021), 123.
[5] Mahdavi and Ishiyama, “Dynamics of the inner elite in dictatorships: Evidence from North Korea,” Comparative Politics 52, no. 2 (2020), 231.
[6] Malesky, “Enhancing research on authoritarian regimes through detailed comparisons of China and Vietnam,” Problems of Post-Communism 68, no. 3 (2021), 167.
[7] Kong, “How China views North Korea’s readiness to reform and its influence on China’s North Korea policy in the post-Cold War era,” The Pacific Review 34, no. 1 (2021), 91.
[8] Diamond, “Democratic regression in comparative perspective: scope, methods, and causes,” Democratization 28, no. 1 (2021), 23.
[9] Malesky, “Enhancing research on authoritarian regimes through detailed comparisons of China and Vietnam,” Problems of Post-Communism 68, no. 3 (2021), 178.
[10] Kong et al., “How China views North Korea’s readiness to reform and its influence on China’s North Korea policy in the post-Cold War era,” 96.
[11] Mao, “Political Institutions, State Capacity, and Crisis Management: A Comparison of China and South Korea,” International Political Science Review 42, no. 3 (2021), 131.
[12] Mahdavi and Ishiyama, “Dynamics of the inner elite in dictatorships: Evidence from North Korea,” Comparative Politics 52, no. 2 (2020), 231.
[13] Malesky, “Enhancing research on authoritarian regimes through detailed comparisons of China and Vietnam,” Problems of Post-Communism 68, no. 3 (2021), 184.
[14] Kong et al., “How China views North Korea’s readiness to reform and its influence on China’s North Korea policy in the post-Cold War era,” 91.
[15] Dukalskis et al., “Everyday nationalism and authoritarian rule: A case study of North Korea,” Nationalities Papers 48, no. 6 (2020), 1066.
[16] Kong, “How China views North Korea’s readiness to reform and its influence on China’s North Korea policy in the post-Cold War era,” The Pacific Review 34, no. 1 (2021), 87.
[17] Gallo, “Three varieties of Authoritarian Neoliberalism: Rule by the experts, the people, the leader.” Competition & Change 26, no. 5 (2022), 559.
[18] Gallo, “Three varieties of Authoritarian Neoliberalism: Rule by the experts, the people, the leader.” Competition & Change 26, no. 5 (2022), 559.
[19] Mahdavi and Ishiyama, “Dynamics of the inner elite in dictatorships: Evidence from North Korea,” Comparative Politics 52, no. 2 (2020), 237.
write