Can someone please explain to me how leadership works in the DPRK

fucking aye

so was the British Empire

did lil rocket man get elected to 4 positions separately or is it a package deal?
does the role the original kim guy occupied still exist?

Kim Jong Un was elected to those positions on separate occasions.
It was the same with Kim Jong Il who became the leader of the army in 1991 and became the leader of the party in 1997.
And the position of "President" which was occupied by Kim Il Sung no longer exists.

Attached: 46439174_480793855764116_139331943127842816_n.jpg (700x760, 59.73K)

Lie. It exists, and Kim Il-Sung is still President. He is the eternal President of the DPRK, that's why the position "doesn't exist", it has been permanently filled.

One was an actual political position, the other is just an honorary title given 4 years after his death.

That user asked about role of president not the 'political position'. Political position of President is head of state, in other countries that political position may fall to a regent, in which case the PM becomes the de-facto head of state.

The head of state political position is occupied by Kim Jong-Un, the role of President rests with his grandfather, who is the President forever, and therefore no one else can be, thus the position cannot be filled.

You saying it doesn't exist is simply untrue.
north-korea-travel.com/kim-il-sung.html

Is this what ☭TANKIE☭s believe?

Go away to Reddit

socialist countries are by default guaranteed to be more democratic than their capitalist counterparts. in fact, i'd even argue that there is no democracy at all in the US. you have no say on how things are run, you're just given two parties that serve the exact same interests to pick every few years or so.

Attached: ac4e9479afde2db3898a4f25602d5c96008b42d4fc21525b45035197d3a4ceec.jpg (625x401, 63.32K)

Actually the same goes for most of continental Europe.

from what I gather on blogs and leftypol infographics:
each 'dear leader' has occupied different political positions, though all high up ones, but its not absolutist.
There are democratic institutions- people hold assemblies in which they discuss a vote until consensus is reached, then a yes/no vote is held to affirm the consensus.
Important legislative positions are elected, and government is at least half working class people.

There are a few issues I could see undermining the democratic character of this. most of them stem from the importance of the military to the country.
How much does the military have over the rest of the government? Is the military democratic? Is it undemocratic and easily able to bully everyone else into doing whatever they want? We dengoid shittery can get you murdered, and even if it should, what does this imply about the freedom to argue different sorts of policy in general?

How open is the discussion at those meetings? If you express an unpopular position will you get abducted and unpersoned and your family told you got a job across the country, or something? Thats the extreme possibility, but simpler intimidation by the police and military could also undermine the authenticity of the meetings.

This.

Attached: american democray.jpg (793x333, 44.9K)

Agreed, unfortunately there hasn't been a socialist country mentioned yet in this thread