Tackling the return of a one-man rule

Sohn In-joo
The author is a professor at the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Seoul National University.

“Let’s look at the roots, not the surface.” We need to take this attitude toward the June 19 Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang. The two dictators are flexing their muscles in a crusade against their common enemy: the United States. The pact mandates Russia and North Korea to “immediately provide military assistance using all available means” if either side is attacked by external forces. The provision rekindles memories of the Cold War. Many theories try to explain the reasons for the sudden consolidation of solidarity between the dictatorship countries. But first, we must note a significant internal change in their authoritarian regime before deciphering their hawkish rhetoric on the surface. What really triggered the change was their reinforced personalist dictatorship. This shakes the world order even further.

First of all, we should be wary of the risk of armed conflicts stemming from changes in the dictatorship structure in Russia and China. As a one-man rule is being cemented in both countries, the past systems checking the supreme leaders are collapsing. Since the power balance between the leader and the ruling elites was broken, power succession became uncertain — and dictator worship intensified.

Will the restoration of personalist dictatorship raise the possibility of a military clash? The degree of belligerence varies according to the character of dictators and characteristics of authoritarian systems. Professor Jessica Weeks, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, carefully weighed the war risks of personalist dictatorships. She discovered that dictatorships by boss-type leaders will more likely trigger an armed conflict than other types of dictatorships, as they monopolize all decision-making processes.

The professor proved the close correlation between dictatorship types and military provocations after analyzing data on armed conflicts around the world from 1946 to 1999. The analysis showed that boss-type dictators — such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin — are more likely to wage war than other leaders of different systems because of their inclination to pursue absolute power abroad just like they do at home.

For instance, Hussein aspired to build a pan-Arab empire while Gaddafi sought to build a unified African government. The elite class loyal to dictators does not put the brakes on their ambitions. They cannot raise objections to their boss’s misjudgments on waging war. Thanks to their monopoly on information and resources, dictators are free from methodical challenges from elites or strong resistance from ordinary citizens. As a result, boss-type dictators can chase their aspirations without paying high political costs.

By contrast, a collective dictatorship led by civilian elites or a hegemonic political party doesn’t favor military clashes as much as a one-man rule. In a collective dictatorship, aides to the supreme leader can serve as a potential force to expel the leader. As a result, a head of state can’t easily rush to wars with other countries for fear of their punishment for losing the war. Such a moderate form of dictatorship can be found in post-Mao China, the post-Stalin Soviet Union and today’s Vietnam.

Even Russian experts failed to anticipate Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Even Chinese experts couldn’t expect President Xi Jinping to lift the ban on three consecutive presidencies to extend his term to a third one and beyond. Russia and China are quickly returning to dictatorships of the past. If the two leaders augment their one-man rule to recover the glory of their past empires, the likelihood of a pre-emptive use of force can increase.

It is naïve to hope that North Korea’s closer relations with Russia help worsen China’s relations with Russia. China doesn’t want the international community to treat it as a rouge state like North Korea and Russia. China and Russia also share the history of ideological and territorial disputes. Given such conflicts of interest between the two dictatorships, free democracies increasingly want to take advantage of the crack in their relations, thanks to their happy memories of the United States successfully exploiting the inherent schism between China and Russia since the 1960s.

But the China-Russia conflict on a state level can be managed by the two dictators on a personal level. With both leaders being the descendants of patriots and similar in age, Xi and Putin share a strong sense of camaraderie. After witnessing shocks from seismic changes in their systems when they were younger, they harbor a strong animosity toward the West. While Putin acquired useful skills to maintain — and control — human relations when he was a KGB agent, Xi is believed to have learned similar techniques from his father, a master of the united front tactic of the Chinese Communist Party. The two leaders have the skills to address their disagreements and frictions to achieve their bigger — and strategic — goals.

We don’t have to be overly upset about the return of personalist dictatorships and the advent of the Russia-China strategic partnership. Fortunately, the military power of the U.S. and its allies in Asia and Europe is mightier than that of China and Russia. Several indicators of military power show a considerable gap between the two groups. From a short-term perspective, the U.S. military deterrence in Asia is reliable. Moreover, South Korea’s national power has grown fast over the past 20 years. According to the annual Asia Power Index announced by the Lowy Institute for International Policy — a nonpartisan think tank in Sydney, Australia — South Korea ranks 5th in military capability, following India, Russia, China and the United States. Japan ranks 6th. In the 2024 Global Firepower ranking, Korea also ranks 5th in the world.

Korea has advanced to the top 10 in nearly all categories, including military, economic and cultural power. It is not the poor and weak country it was shortly after World War II. If Korea is still stuck in its ways, it can’t draw up creative diplomatic strategies. Excessive anxiety and frustration only increase the risk of overreaction. Even amid the cutthroat Sino-U.S. competition around the globe, Korea now has the power — and responsibility — to affect the development of the race and the results of it.

Even if the possibility of dictators triggering a war in the Indo-Pacific region is slim in the short term, we must prepare for China’s rapid military buildup and its bid for hegemony in the longer term. Depending on the results of the U.S. election in November, its allies’ responsibility for their own security — and their defense cost sharing — can increase. But it is urgent for the mutual cooperation between South Korea, Japan, Australia, the Philippines and Indonesia to ratchet up their military capabilities to strike a military balance with the North Korea-China-Russia axis. In the process of establishing a strategic balance and executing deterrence, tension and confrontation are unavoidable. However, to prevent the spread of a new “hot war,” we must build a strong deterrence first.

To defend against dictatorship-sparked armed clashes in Northeast Asia, we also need a strategy based on dialogue and communication with dictators. In other words, we need to propose constructive measures corresponding to the degree of dictators withdrawing from their maneuvers to change the status quo. These measures are needed to help mitigate their concerns about foreign interventions in their domestic affairs.

The international community must also deliver a firm message in face-to-face meetings with dictators, as they may not know their own policy mistakes or hear any uncomfortable truths from their subordinates. As distorted information only raises the risk of misjudgments and disastrous outcomes, various types of summit diplomacy are also required.

The return of a one-man rule poses an existential challenge to South Korea. The country cannot easily navigate a turbulent sea of geopolitical risks. But a calm sea can’t breed top-caliber sailors. Koreans were endlessly trained during 150 years of painstaking efforts and advances. If we want to turn this crisis into another opportunity, we must have that “Team Korea” spirit again — and a sense of calmness this time.

Translation by the Korea JoongAng Daily staff.