McGill Journal of Political Studies 2014 April, 2014 | Page 94

granted considerable latitude to Koreans.
The ensuing intellectual and social ferment
of the 1920s resulted in the organization of
political groups and labour unions5.
Although the both countries shared a
similar historical experience prior to 1972,
this essay will contend that strategic choices
made respectively by the Ferdinand Marcos
government in the Philippines and the Kim
Il Sung government in North Korea led to
divergent regime trajectories. Democracy
was restored in the Philippines in 1986,
while North Korea remains one of the
most closed societies on the planet today.
Ultimately, this essay will argue that the
difference in key strategic choices of elites
made democratization more likely in the
Philippines and authoritarian consolidation
more likely in North Korea.
The essay will be divided into four sections.
First, I will argue that the Philippines and
North Korea were in similar positions in
1972 and are therefore appropriate for
comparative analysis. Second, I will address
alternative explanations for the countries’
differing outcomes. Third, I will outline the
theoretical framework used in this essay.
Finally, I will analyze how the leaders’
strategic decisions influenced the trajectory
of their regimes.
It should be noted that this essay’s
argument is somewhat limited. As will
be discussed in the second section, there
are additional factors that help to explain
the divergent outcomes in the countries
under study. Nevertheless, the strategic
choices of elites play an important, and
often overlooked role, in explaining regime
trajectory.

of future democratic success. While the
comparison is imperfect, it is clear that at
the conclusion of their experiences with
colonialism, the Philippines and North
Korea suffered from stagnation in the
development of democratic institutions. This
commonality meant that the two states were
in a similar situation when authoritarianism
transpired in 1972.

“Although the both countries
shared a similar historical experience prior to 1972, this
essay will contend that strategic choices made respectively
by the Ferdinand Marcos government in the Philippines and
the Kim Il Sung government in
North Korea led to divergent
regime trajectories.”

First, although both states saw increased
productivity, their respective colonial rulers
centered most of the economic development
on the exploitation of resources. In the
Philippines, improvements were focused
on mining and agriculture. Over the
course of American rule, industrial growth
became increasingly neglected. In turn, the
Filipino economy became progressively
more dependent upon the United States
ec