North Koreans Distrust State’s “Law-Abiding” Campaign

North Korean authorities are promoting a new campaign emphasizing a “law-abiding spirit.” This initiative ironically faces deepening public distrust among the citizenry. Consequently, the state organizes mandatory lectures on the constitution and major laws. Therefore, this campaign aims to portray the country as governed by rule of law. However, this push for legal compliance is generating significant public distrust.

The campaign began after Constitution Day on December twenty-seventh. Cities and counties throughout North Pyongan province held public lectures. The regime framed the constitution as a powerful weapon for state rejuvenation. It also emphasized actualizing “people-centered laws” ideologically. Nonetheless, attendees have responded quite unfavorably to these messages.

Citizens argue that reality differs profoundly from the state’s legal rhetoric. People often face control and punishment from police whims, not written law. This gap between legal theory and practice fuels widespread cynicism. Moreover, study sessions cover laws perceived solely as control mechanisms. These include statutes on broadcast signals and excluding reactionary thought.

The laws feel like a list of prohibited actions rather than protections. Consequently, they seem more like tools for controlling individual lives. Furthermore, the law is rarely followed precisely by authorities themselves. This inconsistency severely undermines any institutional trust in the system.

Behaviors warranting fines sometimes bring imprisonment or banishment instead. For instance, watching foreign television can lead to exile to remote areas. Victims of theft or assault also rarely receive genuine legal protection. Meanwhile, suspects with political influence frequently avoid any punishment whatsoever.

The state distributes more legal explanation materials to local committees now. Party bodies and social organizations hold regular related study sessions. However, these sessions have little connection to stabilizing living standards. The public widely views the emphasis as a stricter control method. Thus, people express fatigue with mandatory obedience lectures.

This situation highlights a fundamental crisis of legitimacy for the state. The campaign may temporarily increase surface-level compliance. However, it cannot eliminate the underlying resentment and public distrust. The state’s control apparatus ultimately overrides its own legal framework. This dynamic perpetuates a cycle of alienation between rulers and citizens.

Future steps likely involve more lectures and ideological reinforcement. The regime cannot afford to abandon its rule-by-law narrative. Yet substantial legal reform protecting citizens remains highly improbable. The gap between law as propaganda and law as practice will persist. This enduring public distrust poses a long-term challenge to state authority.