McGill Journal of Political Studies 2014 April, 2014 | Page 92

Abstract
Elites’ strategic choices play a significant, and too often neglected, role in explaining regime
trajectory. Beginning in 1972, this study compares the political calculations of Ferdinand
Marcos in the Philippines and Kim Il-Sung in North Korea. This essay first explains
why the two countries are suitable for comparative analysis. Next, it examines alternative interpretations and argues that these explanations can be supplemented through an
elite-centric approach. After outlining the theoretical framework used for comparative
analysis, this essay shows how the leaders’ differing strategic decisions influenced the trajectory of their regimes.

The Role of Strategic Choices
in Shapi ng Regime Trajectory:
Comparing the Cases of the
Philippines and North Korea
By Lewis Fainer

P

hilippines and North Korea differed
in many ways in 1972. Each state
has a unique history and is home
to a population with a distinct culture.
However, these countries possessed a
number of similarities, which make them
appropriate for comparative analysis. Using
1972 as a starting point, this essay will
compare Ferdinand Marcos’ authoritarian
regime in the Philippines to Kim Il Sung’s
authoritarian regime in North Korea.
Perhaps, the initial point of historically
salient convergence between the Philippines
and North Korea was their colonial
experience: both were controlled by colonial
powers for approximately equivalent time
periods. Following the Philippine-American
War in 1899, the United States took
control of the Philippines. While over the
years American control underwent several
changes, Filipinos were not given their full
independence until 19461. Similarly, the
Korean peninsula fell under Japanese rule
with the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1876. Korea
was officially annexed by Japan in 1910 and
remained a colony of the imperial power until
the end the Second World War in 19452.
Both countries suffered from stagnation in
the development of democratic institutions
Walter L. Williams, “United States Indian Policy and
the Debate over Philippine Annexation: Implications
for the Origins of American Imperialism,” Journal of
American History 66.4 (1980): 811.
2
Hong Kal, “Modeling the West, Returning to Asia:
Shifting Politics of Representation in Japanese
Colonial Expositions in Korea,” Comparative Studies
in Society and History 47.3 (2005): 509.
1

Keywords: Philippines, North Korea, Democratization, Dictatorship, Comparative Politics

during their colonial history.
It is important to recognize that
there were some differences between the
colonial administrations in the two states.
Principally, over time the United States
gradually allowed for the establishment of
civilian administration in the Philippines.
Comparatively, the Japanese did not allow
the Korean people to establish any form of
self-government whatsoever.
Despite the difference in colonial policy,
following the conclusion of World War
Two, the Philippines and North Korea
exhibited a comparable level of stagnation
in the development of their democratic
institutions. The democratic development
that occurred in the Philippines while
the country was under American rule was
not substantive: During each phase of
governance, the United States maintained
veto power over all legislation passed by the
Filipino government. More importantly,
the colonizing force heavily influenced
elections and the legislative agenda in the
Philippines3. This display of democracy
did little to develop legitimate democratic
institutions. Further, although Koreans
were banned from building any form of
autonomous government during Japanese
rule, they were still able to develop some
‘democratic’ institutions. For instance, after
significant protest in 19194, the Japanese
3
David Brody, Visualizing American Empire:
Orientalism and Imperialism in the Philippines
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), 124.
4
Frank Baldwin, “Participatory Anti-Imperialism:

The Role of Strategic Choices | Fainer | 93