Should term limit for China's presidency remain the same, be extended, or eliminated?
- Thread starter Klon
- Start date
antiterror13
Brigadier
Taking a step back, what powers does the largely ceremonial post of the president have? Following that, what are the actual implications of an unlimited number of consecutive presidential terms?
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Can someone (maybe @siegecrossbow) move all the posts from this (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/breaking-world-news-iii-no-discussion.t7090/page-248#post-497586) down from the breaking news thread into this thread? I wrote a lot and don't wanna rewrite all that again.
I would like to add that the amendment speaks of removing the two term limit, but we do not yet know if it talks of removing term limits in general.
From the relevant part of the report :
I'm not quite sure what that means in practice because I don't know what the term of office for the NPC is, yet the fact that it replaces one term of office (two consecutive terms, vs term equal to that of the NPC), makes me feel like that a lifelong tenure is not on the cards.
BUT, I will say that I think a term of office of 10 years for all presidents may not be enough. The two term limit was set in place after Deng, who, despite never being President, did oversee the most far reaching reforms and strategic realignments in modern Chinese history, and whose term as paramount leader was nearly 14 years, rather than 10 years.
Jiang and Hu helped to carry forward and continue with the path that Deng had laid, but it had taken Deng a long time to lay it down to begin with.
Xi is now presiding over strategic and economic reform and initiatives that challenges or even dwarfs what Deng had hoped to achieve, in a time of great upcoming danger and opportunity. He is not someone that is continuing down the path that someone else had laid, but he is laying down a new path.
Time will tell whether the path he is laying will be a long term positive or negative for China, but I don't think anyone would doubt that he is indeed a making a new path rather than treading what has been set down by a predecessor. If anything, that logic itself should mean that it would be a surprise and a concern if Xi did not stay on beyond two terms.
The risk, is whether Xi will choose to stay on after three terms -- but there is a big difference between wondering that, and assuming that the amendment now means that Xi or a successor will have a chance at being a leader for life.
From the relevant part of the report :
I'm not quite sure what that means in practice because I don't know what the term of office for the NPC is, yet the fact that it replaces one term of office (two consecutive terms, vs term equal to that of the NPC), makes me feel like that a lifelong tenure is not on the cards.
BUT, I will say that I think a term of office of 10 years for all presidents may not be enough. The two term limit was set in place after Deng, who, despite never being President, did oversee the most far reaching reforms and strategic realignments in modern Chinese history, and whose term as paramount leader was nearly 14 years, rather than 10 years.
Jiang and Hu helped to carry forward and continue with the path that Deng had laid, but it had taken Deng a long time to lay it down to begin with.
Xi is now presiding over strategic and economic reform and initiatives that challenges or even dwarfs what Deng had hoped to achieve, in a time of great upcoming danger and opportunity. He is not someone that is continuing down the path that someone else had laid, but he is laying down a new path.
Time will tell whether the path he is laying will be a long term positive or negative for China, but I don't think anyone would doubt that he is indeed a making a new path rather than treading what has been set down by a predecessor. If anything, that logic itself should mean that it would be a surprise and a concern if Xi did not stay on beyond two terms.
The risk, is whether Xi will choose to stay on after three terms -- but there is a big difference between wondering that, and assuming that the amendment now means that Xi or a successor will have a chance at being a leader for life.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
The irony is term limits can be seen as undemocratic. Don't the people have the right to vote for the candidate they want? It's a sign of a lack of confidence in a democracy.
I am cautious about too much power accumulating under one person in China's political system, but I do not find to this development wholly objectionable either. It seemed very clear, at least to me, that even back in 2012 the party elite had decided the institutional arrangements the party had settled into were hampering their ability to undertake essential actions, policies, and reforms, and were becoming the source of a great many limitations, deficiencies, and dysfunctions—corruption and paralysis first amongst them. I personally don't think the party is abandoning institutionalization with this move, but if they aren't they do seem to be intent on pushing a very big reset button. If this is right, and Xi's mandate is to restart political institution building from scratch, then granting him the power of indefinite rule makes a lot of sense. It would be nearly impossible to initiate and administer such deep and extensive systemic and structural changes to China's political system without that kind of power and longevity, or, for that matter, the deep and sweeping reconfigurations of society that clearly seemed to have become the focus of the CCP since the 18th NPC.
This move to abolish term limits will certainly unsettle some party insiders, but it also seems that it, as was the case Xi's overall consolidation of power over his first term, has the enjoyed and sustained the backing of most of the party elite. It's very telling that these moves aren't being done by decree, but through formal party processes. Xi has not abandoned consensus politics. If anything, he remains a creature of it. The rarely seen levels of power that have been accumulated under him wasn't taken by him, but granted to him. I think that we should expect everything we've come to know about China's contemporary politics to change in some degree or form, in some cases dramatically, over the length of Xi's reign. For better or worse, once Xi finally steps off the stage, we will be looking at a very different China.
One consequence of Xi having indefinite rule is also that there will be plenty of time to establish new succession schemes if or when they become necessary. On that front, the potential long term dangers from succession ambiguity is not nearly as great as some of the more dire voices have proclaimed. Another important wrinkle that much of the snap judgments and punditry seem to have overlooked is that abolishing term limits does not necessitate the conclusion that Xi will keep the formal office of President for the rest of his life. Once (or if) he's able to take the changes he intends to marshal to a secure and steady place, he very well could (and I would wager will) step back at some point to leave daily governance to others. No term limits gives Xi, and the CCP as a whole, flexibility. It does not signify permanence. Speaking on the whole though, doing away with term limits changes little from what we already knew about Xi's prevailing influence on China's political life. It was always rather evident that Xi will continue be the main guy pulling the strings going forth, whether it would have been by extension of his reign in a formal capacity, or as the main power broker operating in the backdrop.
This move to abolish term limits will certainly unsettle some party insiders, but it also seems that it, as was the case Xi's overall consolidation of power over his first term, has the enjoyed and sustained the backing of most of the party elite. It's very telling that these moves aren't being done by decree, but through formal party processes. Xi has not abandoned consensus politics. If anything, he remains a creature of it. The rarely seen levels of power that have been accumulated under him wasn't taken by him, but granted to him. I think that we should expect everything we've come to know about China's contemporary politics to change in some degree or form, in some cases dramatically, over the length of Xi's reign. For better or worse, once Xi finally steps off the stage, we will be looking at a very different China.
If Xi were trying to burglarize the law he wouldn't have pushed the change through a regular process. We can dispute whether the process in place to deliberate and make constitutional and other political changes are good, proper, or adequate, but no rules are not immutable, and whether a change in them should be considered harmful to order depends not on what the change is, but how the change is done.
One consequence of Xi having indefinite rule is also that there will be plenty of time to establish new succession schemes if or when they become necessary. On that front, the potential long term dangers from succession ambiguity is not nearly as great as some of the more dire voices have proclaimed. Another important wrinkle that much of the snap judgments and punditry seem to have overlooked is that abolishing term limits does not necessitate the conclusion that Xi will keep the formal office of President for the rest of his life. Once (or if) he's able to take the changes he intends to marshal to a secure and steady place, he very well could (and I would wager will) step back at some point to leave daily governance to others. No term limits gives Xi, and the CCP as a whole, flexibility. It does not signify permanence. Speaking on the whole though, doing away with term limits changes little from what we already knew about Xi's prevailing influence on China's political life. It was always rather evident that Xi will continue be the main guy pulling the strings going forth, whether it would have been by extension of his reign in a formal capacity, or as the main power broker operating in the backdrop.
Last edited:
I think the move is high risk/low reward for China (there is plenty of reward for individuals, of course). As in, the best case scenario is not much better than what would have been possible with a two term limit, while the worst case is much worse.
The risk is that if things go badly, who has the power to force the President (who is also General Secretary of the CPC, Chairman of the CMC) to step down? As I understand it, so far the term limit was that guarantee. As people have posted examples of this approach succeeding, a counterexample could come straight from China in the form of Mao. I don't think it's likely, but a similar outcome is possible.
As for low reward, in my opinion politicians (specifically, presidents or prime ministers) are basically replaceable in the sense that their ability to make a positive impact (above that of another politician) is limited in most circumstances (this doesn't hold true for a negative impact, however). This is in contrast to science, sport or business, where the very best can achieve much more than the good or the average. It stems from the fact that, unlike scientists or athletes, politicians don't personally do much of the work. They don't write the budget, decide which industries to incentivize, select which research projects will receive grants or go over the books to find corruption. They determine the general direction of the country, which is undoubtedly important, but not something that allows for individual brilliance to come through.
In what way is Xi better than his predecessors or his hypothetical successors? China had high growth, rapid progress in science and technology, and military modernization before Xi and will most likely have them after him. Put another way, if Xi was unable to continue in his role tomorrow, would China be crippled or severely hurt or could they find a successor and life would go on much the same? Ultimately, a country should have long term goals (which China has) and the whole state apparatus should work towards achieving them, without being reliant on the inspiration or brilliance of one person.
The risk is that if things go badly, who has the power to force the President (who is also General Secretary of the CPC, Chairman of the CMC) to step down? As I understand it, so far the term limit was that guarantee. As people have posted examples of this approach succeeding, a counterexample could come straight from China in the form of Mao. I don't think it's likely, but a similar outcome is possible.
As for low reward, in my opinion politicians (specifically, presidents or prime ministers) are basically replaceable in the sense that their ability to make a positive impact (above that of another politician) is limited in most circumstances (this doesn't hold true for a negative impact, however). This is in contrast to science, sport or business, where the very best can achieve much more than the good or the average. It stems from the fact that, unlike scientists or athletes, politicians don't personally do much of the work. They don't write the budget, decide which industries to incentivize, select which research projects will receive grants or go over the books to find corruption. They determine the general direction of the country, which is undoubtedly important, but not something that allows for individual brilliance to come through.
In what way is Xi better than his predecessors or his hypothetical successors? China had high growth, rapid progress in science and technology, and military modernization before Xi and will most likely have them after him. Put another way, if Xi was unable to continue in his role tomorrow, would China be crippled or severely hurt or could they find a successor and life would go on much the same? Ultimately, a country should have long term goals (which China has) and the whole state apparatus should work towards achieving them, without being reliant on the inspiration or brilliance of one person.
He did burglarize the law. He has simply beaten down his political opponents and gain support in the military to change the law. He changed the law because he could. This tells you more about the psychology of Xi than his politics. He could have appointed a successor and pull the strings behind the scenes like Deng and Jiang did. But he wants to rule on his own. He didn't even want to let go of a symbolic office like the presidency. The optimistic view is that he would let go of power after 15 years and he hands the powers over to a successor properly. But that's just the best case senerio. It could be that he will become president for life. There is nothing that stops him. And he may just have the psychological make up to do that. As for a successor. Is Putin grooming a successor ? Is Erdogan grooming a successor ? Is Hun Sen grooming a successor ? Power hungry people like that don't think like that.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
1) Not to make it sound personal, but I never ever claim that I worship rules. But I do understand that rules are rules and not merely "prescriptions" or "guidelines" that goes on and off when people want it to be so, which is exactly the case now. This is doubly the case so in China which is different from the US.
2) And how long should that be ? 20, 30, 40 years? Who is to decide how long a head of state needs to be in office for his or her's policies ? Xi is already assured a decade in power which is plenty long by any term of governance.
3) And finally, running a country is not the same as running a company. We have seen Trump tried and to that with disastrous results, there is plenty more at stake in a nation then just mere profit and loss margins. And a head of state stepping down its not the same as being "fired" lets make that clear, ex head of states can still serve in various capacities in the decision making level.
Not going to argue this any future because we are clearly going down the realm of the political here. And less this section becomes another cesspool the better. You and me are entitled our own opinions on the matter.