[4] According to historian Adrian Cioroianu, through the use of the term, Antonescu meant to highlight connections with Germany, and after the fall of the Iron Guard from shared government (the National Legionary State), his own personal regime.

[5] It was used in parallel with the rarer cârmaci ("helmsman"), in turn borrowed from similar rhetoric as North Korea under Kim Il Sung and China under Mao Zedong after his visit to both countries in June 1971,[2] as well as in parallel to caudillismo of anti-colonial Latin American leaders whom he met such as Fidel Castro of Cuba and Juan Perón of Argentina.

While references to the Party as the "vanguard of the working class" fell out of use,[2] power became centered on Ceauşescu's prerogative to issue orders to the political apparatus.

[8] Starting from a model applied to the entire Eastern Bloc by Polish political scientist Andrzej Korboński, differentiating Communist leaderships in types of primus inter pares (collective leadership) and primus (personal rule), Cioroianu concluded that Romania's choice for the latter alternative was most likely based on local political tradition.

[10] The new political relations, largely based on the Conducător's charisma, were likened to various other dictatorial regimes of the 20th century, and included by Houchang Esfandiar Chehabi and Juan José Linz among the various "Sultanistic regimes" – the title itself has drawn comparisons with other ones created by dictatorial leaders for themselves: Aryamehr (used by Iran's Mohammad Reza Pahlavi), Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu Wa Za Banga (in Joseph-Désiré Mobutu's Zaire), the Imperial designation of Central Africa (under Jean-Bédel Bokassa), Benefactor de la Patria (imposed by Rafael Leónidas Trujillo in the Dominican Republic), and Conqueror of the British Empire etc.