Distinguish between de jure and de facto governance in PKP history with an example.

• A. De jure refers to how power is actually exercised; de facto refers to what is legally established.
• B. De jure refers to what is legally established; de facto refers to how power is actually exercised in practice.
• C. De jure equals de facto; both refer to legal primacy only.
• D. De jure refers to economic control; de facto refers to military control.

Answer: (B)

De jure governance refers to the formal, legally established authority—the offices, rules, and institutions that exist on paper, like a constitution, official elections, and designated powers. De facto governance is how power actually operates in reality—the people or groups who make real decisions, how policies are carried out, and who effectively controls the state, which can be through informal networks, party leadership, or coercive institutions.

In PKP history, you often see a formal framework that looks legitimate on paper while real power sits with the party leadership or security apparatus. For example, there might be a constitution promising rights and elected bodies, but the party’s control over key ministries and security services means decisions are enforced in practice by those real centers of power rather than through the formal institutions. So the correct idea is that what is legally established is de jure, and how power is actually exercised in practice is de facto.