> 3 generations of a single family's dictatorship is remarkable in modern times
Looked at that way, maybe. OTOH, authoritarian one-party-rule revolutionary regimes lasting on the order of 75 years (e.g. Mexico under the exclusive rule of the PRN/PRM/PRI, the USSR) don't seem as unusual, whether with regular turnovers in power to nonrelated successors (e.g., Mexico), irregular transfers of power to nonrelated successors (e.g., USSR); I don't see any compelling reason that one-party revolutionary regimes that practice irregular succession to related leaders would have particularly different lifespans.
I think they still have to be counted as relatively uncommon in modern times, unless you or others can think of more than those two notorious long lived examples. Does the PRC count?
Even then, the DPRK is coming right up to that rough max lifetime, if per Wikipedia you count 1948 for its founding and 1922 for the USSR, the PRI et. al. a bit longer, but then again it wasn't quite the same thing.
> I think they still have to be counted as relatively uncommon in modern times, unless you or others can think of more than those two notorious long lived examples. Does the PRC count?
The Soviet and PRI regimes are convenient because they started earlier than the DPRK regime, they've ended and their lifespan is, for that reason, known. The PRC, Castro's Cuba, and a number of other one-party (mostly, that I can think of, Communist; the PRI regime is an outlier there) revolutionary states that are a bit younger than the DPRK and are still functioning exist, as well.
I think that such regimes become naturally less stable when the whatever misery existed in the pre-revolutionary and revolutionary period (including any major international war on the territory of the country around its formation) and was relieved -- even if replaced new miseries -- by the institutionalization of the revolution has passed from living memory.
> Even then, the DPRK is coming right up to that rough max lifetime
Sure, I wouldn't be surprised if the next couple decades saw the collapse (as one-party states) of most of the remaining early-cold-war era regimes, the DPRK particularly included; the DPRK is the one I'd expect to collapse most messily, too.
Looked at that way, maybe. OTOH, authoritarian one-party-rule revolutionary regimes lasting on the order of 75 years (e.g. Mexico under the exclusive rule of the PRN/PRM/PRI, the USSR) don't seem as unusual, whether with regular turnovers in power to nonrelated successors (e.g., Mexico), irregular transfers of power to nonrelated successors (e.g., USSR); I don't see any compelling reason that one-party revolutionary regimes that practice irregular succession to related leaders would have particularly different lifespans.
reply