Military Regimes and Possible Links to Personal Regimes

If you look closely at the structure and power concentration of military and personal regimes, they appear to be quite similar.

Military regimes are said to be "belonging" to the military, and personal regimes are said to be belonging to one person. However, military regimes cannot function when the entire military is involved with day-to-day politics as well as national security, so it requires the leadership of an "autocratic leader".

So ways in which the two regimes are similar are: both having an "autocratic leader", and therefore both having a high chance of ending when that leader dies (military regimes are said to be especially unstable and prone to democratization), also, both don't require popular support (both just require a few supporters), and both are "separated" from society. Also, from the Geddes reading, a military regime offers "lucrative opportunities for officers" much like a personal regime offers to its main supporters.

A key feature of military regimes is that military personnal have the incentive to "defend the regime". This could also be said for personal regimes in that it is not the leader they are ultimately defending, it is their access to perks, which a personal regime with a new leader might not provide them. So personal regimes also have an incentive to "defend the reime" because they desire to keep the particular rules and features which make them better off than lower classes (for military regimes, military personnal are better off than non-military members).

The article says that a military regime is "invulnerable" when there is "present an unchallenged military dictator" and "vulnerable" when the dictator is "absent" or "in decline".

An example of a military regime that has close links to a personal regime is that of North Korea led by Kim Jong II.
His regime does not require popular support, and he operates the military at a personal level. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/suryong.htm