North Korea’s Political Shift: Why Restoring a Presidential Title Matters
Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) — North Korea may be preparing a major symbolic change in its political system by reviving the title of “President”, once held by the nation’s founder Kim Il-sung, for the current leader Kim Jong Un. This development, reported by analysts and regional media, signals a calculated internal shift that goes beyond ceremonial rhetoric, raising questions about power consolidation, succession, and how the isolated state legitimises its rulers.
At first glance, the possible return of an old title might seem like political semantic tinkering. But in the context of North Korea’s unique governance model — deeply intertwined with revolutionary mythmaking and dynastic legitimacy — such a move could reshape how power is presented internally and perceived externally.
A Short Historical Overview: Titles and Power in North Korea
To understand the potential significance of reintroducing the presidency, it helps to look back at how leadership titles evolved in the DPRK.
Historical Timeline of Key Leadership Titles
| Period | Title Held by Leader | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 1948–1972 | Premier / Supreme Leader (informal) | State founded by Kim Il-sung |
| 1972–1994 | President of the DPRK | Kim Il-sung’s formal head of state role |
| 1994–2011 | Multiple posts (no presidency) | After Kim Il-sung’s death, title abolished |
| 2011–present | Chairman / General Secretary / President of State Affairs Commission | Kim Jong Un’s titles |
The 1972 constitution introduced the formal office of President of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, making Kim Il-sung both the symbolic and constitutional head of state. Upon his death in 1994, that position was abolished — and later constitutional amendments declared him “Eternal President of the Republic”, perpetuating his status in the collective mythology of the state, even without a living occupant.
Under Kim Jong Il — son of Kim Il-sung — the presidential office was not revived. Instead, power rested in other formal posts such as Chairman of the National Defence Commission, signalling a break with the older title yet maintaining continuity through ideology and personality worship. Kim Jong Un, the current leader, has held multiple designations, including President of the State Affairs Commission, General Secretary of the Workers’ Party, and informal honorifics such as “Supreme Leader”.
What’s Happening Now? Restoration of the Title
Recent reporting indicates that North Korean state language has increasingly referred to Kim Jong Un as “head of state”, a phrase that — constitutionally — aligns with the definition previously reserved for the President of the Republic. According to analysts tracking North Korean media and internal nomenclature, this change is not accidental but part of a subtle recalibration of the regime’s official structure.
This shift has occurred ahead of a key political event: the 9th Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea and a subsequent session of the Supreme People’s Assembly — the two bodies that shape the state’s formal policy direction and constitutional framework. In this context, restoring the presidential title could be formalised as part of constitutional revisions or announcements tied to these gatherings.
Key Indicators of Changing Leadership Terminology
- North Korean media increasingly refer to Kim Jong Un as “head of state” since late 2024.
- Formal constitutional revisions in late 2024 and early 2025 hint at institutional restructuring, but official texts have not been fully disclosed.
- Analysts see this not just as propaganda but as preparatory groundwork for restoring the presidency.
Why This Change Matters — Beyond a Name
1. Power Consolidation and Legitimacy
Unlike many countries where a title may hold limited formal power, in North Korea it carries deep symbolic and ideological weight. By reviving the presidency — previously held only by the nation’s founder — the regime may be cementing Kim Jong Un not only as today’s leader but as a historical anchor linking him directly to the state’s origins.
This matters because legitimacy in North Korea is not derived from elections or public mandates but from revolutionary continuity, loyalty to Juche ideology, and the personality cult around the Kim family.
2. Succession Planning
Succession has always been a source of internal tension in authoritarian regimes, especially hereditary ones. By reintroducing a presidential role with constitutional backing, the party and the state may be subtly signaling a framework for how power transitions could occur in the future — perhaps even after Kim Jong Un’s eventual death. While this remains speculative, the institutionalisation of titles matters deeply in a highly ritualised political order.
3. Formalising “Head of State” Role
Currently, Kim Jong Un’s main constitutional post — President of the State Affairs Commission — makes him supreme leader but not “head of state” in the traditional sense. Restoring a presidency would align constitutional formality with public language, reducing ambiguity in international diplomacy and ceremonial affairs.
Causes Behind the Shift
Several factors may be driving Pyongyang’s move to revive the president title:
Political Ritualism and Image Crafting
North Korea’s regime operates on symbols and narrative continuity. Leaders are legitimised by tying them into the revolutionary lineage. Bringing back the presidential title could be intended to:
- Reinforce ideological continuity with Kim Il-sung;
- Strengthen internal unity as the regime faces economic and diplomatic stresses;
- Bolster Kim Jong Un’s personal authority amid regional uncertainties.
Domestic Policy Context
The DPRK faces persistent economic challenges due to sanctions, limited foreign engagement, and internal structural issues. Elevating the leader’s status can be seen as an internal rallying mechanism to disorder resistance and signal stability.
International Signalling
Though Pyongyang rarely adjusts formal titles for foreign audiences, such changes can communicate confidence, continuity, and strength to both allies and adversaries — especially amid ongoing tensions over nuclear development and denuclearisation negotiations.
Impact on the North Korean People
For ordinary North Koreans, state titles and constitutional offices are less about governance mechanics and more about ideology and social order. The government tightly controls information, and official propaganda shapes everyday perception of the leader and the state.
Psychological and Social Effects
- Increased devotion to leadership cult: Restoring “President” could amplify state narratives that Kim Jong Un embodies the nation’s destiny.
- Perception of national unity: By linking the current leader explicitly with the founder’s legacy, the regime fosters the idea of uninterrupted national purpose.
- Expectations of policy continuity: Citizens may interpret such moves as assurances against instability, whether economic or political.
Actual Material Impact
For most citizens, tangible day-to-day conditions — including shortages, sanctions effects, and limited freedoms — are more influenced by broader policy decisions than by leadership titles. However, symbolic reinforcement of state ideology can indirectly affect public morale and compliance.
Regional and International Reactions
Externally, North Korea’s formal internal structuring often draws scrutiny from neighbouring countries and global powers. Restoring a presidency might:
- Draw diplomatic analysis on how Pyongyang perceives its own stability and future direction.
- Signal to South Korea, the U.S., China, Japan, and Russia where North Korea positions itself ideologically and institutionally.
- Influence discussions around denuclearisation, sanctions, and engagement, even if indirectly.
No official responses from foreign governments have yet been widely reported on this specific topic, but analysts are watching closely.
What Happens Next? Future Outlook
Short-Term Prospects
- The 9th Party Congress and Supreme People’s Assembly session may formalise constitutional changes that restore the presidency.
- Official announcements or state media reports could outline the new powers, responsibilities, and ceremonial roles attached to the title.
Long-Term Implications
- Power institutionalisation vs. personality rule: Will this be a lasting structural change or primarily symbolic?
- Succession schemes: Could future leaders inherit a formal presidency, further complicating traditional succession paths?
- Diplomatic signalling: How will this affect negotiations on nuclear policy or regional stability?
North Korea often reveals sensitive changes slowly and deliberately, so analysts expect incremental rather than abrupt shifts.
Conclusion
While a leadership title may appear at first to be a matter of semantics, in North Korea such designations are deeply embedded in revolutionary history, political legitimacy, and state ideology. If the DPRK formally restores the presidency for Kim Jong Un, it would mark a significant moment in the evolution of its political system — one with implications for internal governance, national identity, and how the outside world understands Pyongyang’s long-term intentions.
Understanding North Korea’s leadership dynamics is not merely an exercise in political trivia, but a window into how a hermetic state sustains control, prestige, and continuity amid a world that remains both wary and curious.