In case the significance is not immediately obvious: this means things have officially been set in motion to keep Xi Jinping in power for the rest of his life, which will mean a continuation of his style of Chinese policies for the foreseeable future.
There is plenty of corruption going around. His 'Rooting out corruption' is simply rephrasing moving my cronies into power. People loyal to the last administration and not yours get removed, useful people loyal to the current administration stay. Corruption is simply the proxy cause as effectively everyone is guilty so anyone can be removed.
PS: You see this everywhere from China, Russia, India, on one end and Japan and Europe on the other. Even local governments and homeowners associations like to review old contracts as the people in power shift.
Something I think most Westerners who in liberal democracies don't understand is that the notion of "corruption" doesn't really exist in the rest of the world. At least not in the sense of being an immoral deviation from the norm.
What we think of as "corruption" would be better be termed "patronage", and it is the natural and default mode of political behaviour for human beings. It is impersonal, merit and market based systems that are the aberration, historically speaking. And, in the absence of strong institutions preventing it, societies inevitably revert to being patronage-based.
For example, imagine you are interviewing two people for a job. One is an extremely well-qualified and capable stranger. The other is a mediocre candidate, but is the son of a friend of your uncle. Who do you give the job to? For many people in the world, the idea that you would even consider not giving the job to the son of your uncle's friend is heresy. And they would not consider that attitude in any sense immoral or improper. Indeed, being in a position to help yourself and your acquaintances, and instead choosing to assist a stranger would instead be the perverse choice.
In a wider sense, within patrimonial societies there is never any question of ending patronage altogether. Instead, elite patronage networks compete with each other, and "anti-corruption" drives are about the dominant patronage-network cementing power and punishing another. We often see this in countries where every change in the government is accompanied by the prosecution of the old leaders for corruption by the new, only for the new themselves to be prosecuted a few years later upon leaving office.
Xi's efforts might be presented as being "anti-corruption" in nature, but they are very much about securing the position of himself and his patronage network. If he was serious about stopping corruption altogether, he would be concentrating on reforming China's institutions to make them more transparent, more merit-based and less susceptible to centralised political control. Instead, he's removing obstacles to himself and his patrons remaining in power indefinitely.
Xi's name "Xi Jinping" will appear in the Constitution, whereas Hu just gets his "thought" without his name into the Constitution.
Besides, Hu's thought is to be put into Constitution after he had stepped down for 5 years. Xi's thought will appear in the Constitution when he is in the middle of paramount power.
Should I add a note of irony? The 19th congress of CPSU was also set to "solidify Stalin's rule for all eternity" it was all but affirmed, but as we all know 19th congress was Stalin's last. Supposedly he died of natural causes, but even if he were not to, it is clear that the amount of people preparing to back stab him was enough to dethrone him before the 20th congress.
It may be the same for Xi. It is all or nothing now for the few of his remaining opponents.
When Shinzo Abe is serving his 4th term as Japan's PM, when Angela Merkel is serving her 4th term as German's Chancellor, surely it is not suitable for Xi to stay in the office for more than 2 terms.
Haha, Moodles, have you not heard about Merkel jailing the opposition, executing people in the thousands, censoring the internet with the (very much known to her) Big German Wall, and the corruption in everyday German life?
Of course not, Merkel will be politically gone in a few years, she will be slowly forgotten just like many previous German leaders. There will probably be a couple of words about her in the book of history but do you believe she is going to shape the future of this world? ;)
Wut? The EU in the Merkel years went through some complex growth crisis; she helped resolving them in ways that undeniably benefited Germany and, in some cases, helped the bloc as well. Some of her choices (Schaußle...) weren’t great, but she hardly killed the EU project single-handedly - the project is actually very much alive, with commissioners increasingly flexing their muscles towards the world at large. If anything, she’s managed to keep some contradictory stances together for longer than many expected.
The point is that the GP did not compare political systems, but only looked at the number of terms that leaders are serving in very different systems, as if that was a meaningful comparison.
You don't need US-centric brainwashing to understand the difference between Germany, with our seven(!) major parties, and China.
Five of the major parties just raised their own salaries substantially, while the population widely earns EUR 500 above social security level.
There are many parallels between Germany and China. The population gets low wages in order to facilitate exports, which benefits the ruling classes and the civil servants.
The lavishly paid functionaries of the state television keep people calm.
The German president can only be elected two times and he has limited power. The German chancellor also has limited power. Terms for chancellor are not limited, but he/she has to be elected every 4 years. Merkel barely made it this time, and it's almost certain she will not be re-elected next time and also very likely that she will not strife for candidacy next time.
Comparing China's system with Germany's makes a lot of sense, but you have to do it correctly. If Xi would be a chancellor with limited power in a parliament that consists of members of 6 different parties, then it would be less of a problem if he ran as a candidate in a third election.
No, it's not suitable. Merkel's tenure in not restricted by law, mostly because chancellor is appointed by majority party/coalition in the parliament. Every election cycle there's a very real chance CDU alliance and CDU appointed chancellor would have to go. In fact, it's a certainty Merkel isn't going to hold this post for life and then pass it down in her family.
While in China, there's a 22nd amendment inspired safeguard in the constitution, specifically to prevent another Mao-like figure from coming to power. The safeguard is being removed specifically for Xi: you can't seriously argue he's irreplaceable across the population of 1.7 billion. The country turns from being run by an authoritarian committee to a personal dictatorship.
What a bunch of hyperbole. Rome flourished following Caesar for quite a while. Only if you are sure that China is now beyond the event horizon and unable to change it's constitution going forward should you make such a statement.
In a democracy there is at least a well defined process for removing leaders which is outside those leader’s control. Even then, I think the US system of term limits has its benefits and think it might be advantageous here in the UK. After all both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, who at least in their early terms seemed to be effective leaders, became clearly out of touch towards the ends end even in the eyes of many of their own supporters.
However in an autocracy with no other clearly defined mechanism to constrain the power of a leader, term limits at least fulfil that function. The danger is that with no fixed constraints or limits on power in such a system, if a monster gains power or if power creates a monster, there’s nothing anyone can do. The question is, does the risk of that happening outweigh the risk of ejecting a capable leader from power earlier than necessary.
So even if you think Hu a Jintao is the best leader for China now and after 2 terms, the precedent could lead to someone you think is a terrible leader gaining perpetual power later.
I think term limits are a weak defence against autocratic leaders, because in such situations the separation of powers necessary to maintain the constitutional check usually doesn't exist. I.e. there's no independent judiciary or opposition bloc in the legislature. In a system like China, these institutions are politically inert facades, designed to outwardly resemble their democratic counterparts, but with actual power remaining wholly invested in the executive, which is wholly controlled by the ruling party.
The real checks on an autocratic leader are rivalries within the ruling party's elite, and once a leader like Xi has achieved dominance there, then amending the constitution to remove the term limit clause is trivial.
Completely agree, term limits are a weak check but better than nothing. It reserves power to a political elite that control the succession process, but at least that’s better than a single individual.
Isn't the issue that they are discussing getting rid of term limits altogether? As opposed to setting a higher term limit? If so, how is it a fair comparison to Germany or Japan? I'm sure we'd have even more outrage if any number of countries decided to get rid of term limits altogether. I could be misunderstanding you though.
Germany doesn't have term limits for the Chancellor either. It isn't a huge problem in practice since the role doesn't have quite that much power and shifting majorities in parliament tend to prevent constant re-election of the same person.
That should be the sign for the sane investor to get out of China. Rulers that want to stay forever usually get to a high level of stagnation, corruption and suppression rather sooner than later. The status of a supreme leader can only be challenged by revolution, uprising and/or violence. The communist party already has absolutist power - now they get insane. Good luck with that.
It's not so simple - there are implicit institutions in the network of who knows who, and who makes decisions that get executed, vs just having opinions. The revolution would be in the form of a fork that would need to fight for attention, money, allies, etc. - not wholly unlike a real revolution.
that's a matter of 'forking' resource usage...
For a nation-state level, it's going to be a lot dirtier (defaming, violence, and possible civil war)...
If anything, investors will be encouraged to invest in China due to this news. Xi has been a stable leader for the country. This news simply means more of the same.
I doubt they meant to imply previous leaders were unstable. Stability is good for investment, and the current government is stable. A new leader could be any of the kinds of leader that make investors look elsewhere.
How can you have stability when you're at the whims of a dictator. Having a dictator is quite different from a single-party rule that changes its leaders.
Assuming we're talking about foreign investors. Quite simply that's going to depend on the policies, not whether Xi is in there or not.
As a party dictatorship with routinely transitioned politicians, China's government has been fairly stable in recent times. Xi clearly isn't necessary in any regard, he's trying to make himself necessary. Hu Jintao was a stable leader that oversaw one of the fastest economic expansions in world history. He also wasn't necessary, in terms of remaining perpetually in power. Xi inherited that nicely built-up economic position. It's the policies that Xi follows/implements that will determine investor confidence, just as it was for Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin (also a stable leader that didn't need to remain in power perpetually). Xi is properly replaceable like the others, insofar as he doesn't implement political changes that forcibly make him otherwise. The power move that Xi appears to be going for, is all down to his personality, rather than necessity, which is in stark contrast with the prior two Presidents.
More of the same would be keeping the term limit, this signals a regression to the worst tendencies in humanity, eroding the laws that are designed to prevent them. Even if Xi is a stable leader for the next 30 years, will the next leader to take advantage of the removal of term limits be the same?
Worry about that after 30 years then. I don't pretend i can predict what's going to happen at that time frame. Isn't AI supposed to take over everything by then?
If you want to see regression to the worst tendencies in humanity look no further than democratically elected Tony Abbott going on an ideological crusade to undo everything Julia Gillard’s government achieved. The same is playing out with Trump dismantling everything the Obama Administration accomplished.
Investors look at the short term. In the short term this works well.
Even In the longer ter, individual investors may well personally do very well (be on the good side of the supreme ruler and the possibilities are very good).
Actually I might put money into China off this news. Irrespective of other risks of China - the state capitalist model is working and Xi is going to hold to this implementation of it.
If this system is working well (I'm not judging), and the only way to sustain it is to annoint a dictator for life (because the rest of the Communist Party won't support this system?) then something is dangerously wrong.
No dictator for life has been appointed, they just repealed the presidential term limit. Xi has been in office five years, america had FDR for 12 years.
FDR would have been 16 years, but he died after 13.
But he didn't repeal a term limit. There was a two-term limit in precedent, but not in law, so FDR didn't have to repeal anything. But people saw that, and put a two-term limit in law. Any future FDR or Xi in the US will have to change the law. And yes, that will set off warning alarms in the US, if it ever happens.
> Warning alarms have been ringing since the start of the last US election...
Agreed.
> ... warnings won't be enough to stop it from happening.
Here I disagree. For it to happen in the US now would require a constitutional amendment. I don't see any way that would happen now. Especially since seeking one would make the alarm bells ring much louder.
Or, for it to happen now would take ignoring the constitution. I'm pretty sure that would trigger a civil war.
Either way, in the US it's much harder than just having a party congress decide that it will be so.
I can't tell whether the people in this thread claiming this will be the downfall of China are serious. Do you really believe that, or do you just want it to be true because you're afraid of China?
Probably both. Everyone, including and especially China's own citizens, should be very afraid of the current regime and its path towards a surveillance state. I don't think anyone in this thread actually expects China to fall within a few years, but it isn't unjustified to believe that this will be the downfall of China, and that we should be very worried about an upcoming war.
Personally I'm afraid it could result in China attempting an invasion of Taiwan. This could lead to war between the US (as well as other countries) and China.
I doubt the US would actually go to war with China for an invasion of Taiwan. We happily gave Taiwan’s UN seat to China to establish relations and no longer have official relations with Taiwan at all. I don’t think we’d sacrifice the relationship with our largest trading partner over Taiwan. Nor do I think our politicians would sign up for a war against China except in the face of an existential threat.
I doubt the US would not actually go to war with China over an invasion of Taiwan. At the very least, there would be huge consequences in the very quick remilitarization of Japan and the start of a new cold war.
Remember that time the US went to war with Russia over the invasion of Ukraine?
An invasion of Taiwan would likely garner a similar response. Heightened tensions, international sanctions that don’t seem to do much, and yes, increased military presence in nearby allies. Outright war would be costly and endless and frankly unwinnable.
I don't think that the two are really that comparable. The US is much better equipped to help thwart a Chinese invasion of Taiwan than the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The invasion would be very far from an easy operation or even a sure win. And even ignoring America's historical support of Taiwan against China, if China were to successfully invade Taiwan, it would change the security situation of the area to such a degree that even military brass would be vary wary to not take a stand.
> Outright war would be costly and endless and frankly unwinnable.
I'm not sure why you think this is the case. If the US were to try to invade China, then yeah it would basically be unwinnable. But why would the US do that? They would only be trying to contain them. If they could help thwart and invasion and then shutdown the Chinese navy, then they would basically already have won by any reasonable measure.
Not comparable at all. Protecting Taiwan has been a foundational element of American foreign policy. A Chinese invasion would signal to the world a huge shift in power and would effectively be the end of US dominance over the world stage.
The only chance that would trigger China invading Taiwan is that it declares to be an fully independent country, in which case China will probably do so at any cost, even if it means full scale war with U.S. Will U.S. be ready for that?
It would be a shift, not an end. The world is essentially dividing itself up into the three regions described in 1984, to an almost eerie extent. The US will maintain its own power base through increased control over North and South America.
The U.S. doesn't have much history promising Ukraine defense as it was part of the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. In contrast, Taiwan was practically there since 1949.
Taiwan's economy is multiple times the size of Ukraine's and is comparable to the likes of Saudi Arabia. To not defend Taiwan would send a very bad signal to all American allies that unless you're worth more than Taiwan, we'll sell you out. Assuming China continues to grow more powerful, this also means South Korea would be in danger as well. This is not even accounting the fact that if China controls Taiwan, China will control a majority of sea lanes to Korea and Japan. If she wished then she could interfere with oil supplies to those countries.
Plus the U.S. already goes great lengths to restrict China from acquiring U.S. technology, much of which has supply lines and partners in Taiwan. Letting China take Taiwan would mean a massive change unless you think we'll just accept that every Taiwanese company now will be forced to put backdoors for the Chinese.
A Chinese civil war would spill all over the place. Look at the chaos surrounding the Syrian civil war and scale it up by at least an order of magnitude. A billion refugees trying to flee across the borders mostly in the east (where population densities are highest) would turn the surrounding countries into giant refugee camps, unless they somehow manage to close their borders.
North Korea is so fragile that it would follow shortly thereafter. South Korea (a US ally) would have a huge mess on their hands.
Japan (another US ally) has got an ocean to protect it, but given the huge shipping volume in the region, shiploads of refugees would try crossing anyway.
So that means that the US would have even more reason to intervene than in other conflicts.
I don't know how much Russia cares about it's eastern territory, but it's unlikely they'd sit around doing nothing.
By now there are 4 countries with nuclear weapons involved, and I haven't even mentioned India and Pakistan, who usually don't appear to be the interventionist type, but they have a common border with China. Who knows how they might react.
Basically, any war involving China is bound to be WW3 levels of bad.
In our highly globalized world. A civil war in China, India, Europe, Russia, or America is almost guaranteed to spill out due vast amount of global resources already being fought over in light skirmishes, proxy wars, and shows of power at various borders.
In China's specific case, India and China are fighting over borders. China and the US (allies) are running into issues over resources in the South China Sea. Also Russia and the US both are increasingly their navy presence in the Pacific. It's a powder keg waiting to go off for sure.
Doesn't seem to me this is a step towards China growing into the preeminent power. More like a small step toward autocratic rule and a cult of personality.
Xi is a fine leader — I don't believe problems would start with him. More so his successor who may have decades of rule.
Yes, this is the story everywhere. It all works this way, until you get old, and your kids think they have a right to the throne and being a old parent you usually have to yield. Also decades of rules would have weakened most institutions who could likely stop this from happening. Then you use military etc to suppress any dissent. And then you have a dynasty in making.
Those leaders had mandates from the people in any case, via elections they could lose. Unless you are talking about the Taiwan and South Korea dictators of Mao’s era.
Yes. I was in particular refering to how these countries were ruled during their "growth period".
The Chinese communist obviously don't have a democratic mandate. But I think it would be a mistake to think that they don't have widespread popular support.
I don't think Mao's time could be considered very equivalent to today. There were a lot of dictators around after WW2, but many gave way to stable democracies, and those that didn't weren't prosperous.
The problem with the CCP is that there is no real feedback loop. Their support is very fragile, and it would just take one recession to break it (they have no "lets throw the turkey's out" pressure valve).
Growth isn't going to always be strong. Economic cycles are inevitable, even if they manage to kick the can of a correction down the road today, it will just come back worse in the future.
People in China can only express their discontent by rioting (which happens in China, a lot). They have no other real way of communicating with officials, they can't even make sneaky jokes on the internet anymore to express their dissatisfaction. That alone is a very dangerous situation.
I don’t think it’s really about individuals though. For every country with a long period of continuous successful rule, I can point you to a country with a long period of failed rule, such as Zimbabwe.
The point is, no matter how great Hu is as an individual the danger is that granting him perpetual unquestioned power creates a precedent for a future monster to gain a similar lock on power. In a democracy, the voters can depose a monster peacefully. In the cureent Chinese system a monster would only get 2 terms. So the question is, are you prepared to accept Hu getting power to life, at the risk of a future person to get it being a Mugabe, or Gaddafi, or Amin?
In a system with very few constraints on absolute power, is it really prudent in the long term to remove all of the remaining ones? Finally, how much can you trust the judgement of someone willing to impose that risk on his country for his own benefit?
Even Singapore's PM was given a popular mandate via parliamentary elections. Singapore and the PAP has some aspects of authoritarianism, but it still believes deeply in the rule of law.
Alternatively (with apologies for playing a bit fast and loose in terms of President/Prime Minister/Secretary - political systems come in many shapes and sizes) and note that in some of these political party doesn't make much sense - when a military strongman stages a coup and holds power for a decade and a half, is there really a ruling political party?
Japan-
Liberal Democratic Party: 1955-1993, 1994-2009, 2012 to present
Singapore-
People's Action Party: 1959 to present
Lee Kuan Yew: 1959 to 1990
Goh Chok Tong: 1990 to 2004
South Korea-
Syngman Rhee: 1948 to 1960 (interestingly, exempted himself from an eight-year limit in 1954)
Park Chung-hee: 1963 to 1979 (took power in military coup, assassinated)
Taiwan-
Chiang Kai-shek: 1950 to 1975
Kuomintang Party: 1950 to 1996, had the advantage of being a single-party state until roughly late eighties
That's goalpost motion, though. By that standard the Chinese policy change in the headline is a total nothingburger because the communist party has been in power since the revolution and will continue to be after Xi is dead.
Obviously, no: the headline is significant; east asian governments are subject to policy change and reform even within a single party rule; and this is a canard. There is a difference between indefinite rule by an abstract "party" and indefinite rule by an actual person. And China is crossing that gap.
That level of political discussion is beyond me. I'm just presenting some examples of East Asian countries that had the same ruler / ruling-party for decades.
How is removing hard limit on two terms "crossing that gap"? It'd be a much greater leap if Xi wants to rule indefinitely. Xi (and the communist party) wants stability, and he has to answer to what the people want to keep staying in power
I've lived in China, Singapore, and US for a long time. And I have to say Singapore government is apparently the most reasonable one out of the three. It most likely also have highest approval rate.
The performance of the economy has nothing to do with investment returns. Paradoxically, the correlation between economic growth and stock market returns is actually negative[1][2][3]. Investors can do well in stagnating economies. Also, the anti-corruption campaign[4] happening in China right now is probably the farthest reaching since its imperial days.
The economic explanation for this is quite simple: huge growth in the stock market means that money is being taken from productive and moved into speculative vehicles. The higher the growth in the stock market, the higher the desire to move more money into stock (the phenomenon of "chasing returns"). So, contrary to what most economists say, a high growth in the stock market is a primary indicator that the real economy is lacking investment. Of course the result is that a huge recession follows, which is "explained away" by economists as the "normal investment cycle".
I used to belong to a model railroad club. There were two members who argued about nearly everything; didn't get along at all. Eventually, one of them resigned from the club. I thought: Finally, things can run smoothly now, without that nonsense. But from that point, the club slowly died. It took over a year, but that was the inflection point.
The conflict had been part of keeping things moving forward, but I didn't recognize it.
Edit: super surprised by the multiple downvotes. I guess the connection is obvious to everyone else - so could someone spell out for me what parent poster likely had in mind?
----
Original comment:
I am having trouble seeing why this was brought to mind for you. Was the moral of your story, for you, that when members argue bitterly ("didn't get along at all") to the point of one of them resigning, it means things are moving along?
Okay but what reminded you of the Xi story - there was really no arguments mentioned?
If I extrapolate your lesson too far (I don't think this is what you're saying) it could be that you say, where there is no bitter member conflict, projects die? So, if the members agree that Xi should stay in power, without bitter argument, it is a sign the Party is dying?
That seems absurd. But then I just don't understand why you thought of your anecdote.
It's the stagnation of very low friction systems (aka yes-man systems).
It happens in corporations. It happens in political systems.
Take someone like Steve Jobs. He was emperor, in this example. That was particularly the case in his second stint at Apple. His personality sparked friction however, he cultivated it on purpose, constantly seeking it out. He wanted to fight over ideas and got upset when people wouldn't fight with him. Had he not done so, stagnation would be the only possible outcome given his managerial dominance, it would have led to a yes-man system, and Jobs would have been flying entirely blind (his yes-men would hide everything from him, lie to him, tell him only what he wanted to hear, etc). For example, there's a lot of evidence that eg Saddam Hussein and Hitler's yes-men regularly attempted to lie to them, hide facts from them, etc. due to the consequences.
Gates and Bezos also likewise cultivate/d friction, despite being emperor equivalents in their companies. Gates liked to aggressively challenge people to combat him on ideas. He inserted friction. He similarly would get upset if you walked away from a battle without resolution (Paul Allen describes that in his book).
Putin and Stalin as dictators and personality contrasts, crush/ed friction, and ruled by strict edict. They require/d unquestioning allegiance and obedience, seeking minimal challenges to their approaches and ideas. That's extremely common in political dictatorships. That approach can only lead to stagnation, which you have historically universally seen in political dictatorships. Obama has a good quip about this aspect of political life in his episode of Jerry Seinfeld's Comedian in Cars, in terms of interacting with dictator types.
> For example, there's a lot of evidence that eg Saddam Hussein and Hitler's yes-men regularly attempted to lie to them, hide facts from them, etc. due to the consequences.
Mussolini was not different. For example whenever he went to visit a military airport, they would bring airplanes from all over Italy to increase the numbers. What he thought was part of a big airforce were in fact the same planes over and over. When he went to war with Hitler he probably thought he had a good army. In practice since the suppliers of the army where chosen through corruption and nepotism, the soldiers couldn't even get working boots.
If you incentivize an action, it's going to happen. Here there is a incentive to lie.
One of Bill Clinton's qualities, is he listens to everybody and speaks and engages with them on a personal level. In most cases the leader is just a judge on a excellent team. Team does most of the work.
Parent comment was an anecdote that basically implies that there would be less opposition within or outside the party to counterbalance Xi & supporters the longer he remains within power. Opposition is a form of conflict or argumentation to provide a counterbalance against bad/extreme ideas. So if there's less opposition, then likely this could signal the beginning of the end of the current system in China.
Denying yourself a market share of the largest growing middle class in the world doesn't seem like a good business decision.
Once China's middle class starts spending more on foreign goods you will see many businesses and companies cater to their needs like how the current status is to cater to the North American market.
Of course not but sometimes operating out of principal makes sense to me. For example if I was precision cast parts — a private family owned business that Warren Buffet bought for many billions — and A Chinese state owned enterprise decided to copy and replace Boeing with their own plane as CEO or owner or founder etc of precision cast parts I would refuse the build. It would hurt me and help my competitors but it’d be worth it.
The world seems set for a gerontocracy. Mugabe flies to Singapore for mysterious medical treatments, but the pattern seems to be repeating with elderly politicians and leaders everywhere. Perhaps they receive much more medical attention than the average old person, or perhaps they have access to life-extension treatments that aren’t widely publicized yet.
Regardless, it seems like the case for term-limits is stronger now, than it’s ever been.
Don't worry, The Blockchain will allow the youth to shatter through the vestiges of the old guard with their false doctrine and unite the world with a new global currency, ending world hunger with smart contracts, sponsored by the Winklevii
Dark skinned people age well because their skin color conceals the effects of aging skin that you can see in light colored skin: mottle, precancerous lesions, and wrinkles
Lots of other countries don't impose a limit in this many terms the prime minister of the head of state can be reelected... And some have a higher democracy index than the US, where such a limit is in place.
It's a slippery slope.
The people of Venezuela voted to remove constitutional safeguards that saw populist Chavez stand as presidential candidate indefinitely.
Bolivia rejected a similar referendum but Morales has said he'll run again regardless - based on a court decision that throws the constitution out the window.
Meaningless discussions flooded with brainless terms such as "democracy", "freedom" is not going to lead to anything useful. It is far more useful to actually ask a simple question - what Xi wants during his 3rd term. He already had his name written into party's charter, his name will probably be written into the Constitution in weeks. This already ensures his ultimate power no matter what is his official title. He must be asking for the 3rd term for something very specific. Something never achieved by previous leaders, something is going to be judged very favourably in the book of Chinese history.
My understanding is that Xi wants to be in the office so Taiwan can re-united within his Presidency. This will be considered as the whole reunification of China which carries the ultimate importance in Chinese value system and history. Taiwan itself in that process is _NOT_ relevant, it is an island generating 3% of China's GDP with less than 2% of the population. However, a bold however, being able to do that implies the largely withdraw of the American influence from the west pacific. It is THE symbol of the rise of China.
He is not just asking for his 3rd term. President Xi Jinpin is asking to be the leader in charge to manage and witness the above mentioned transformation.
I agree that a dictator starting a reckless regional conflict is a safe bet. Be it Taiwan, Vietnam or India, the likelihood of war is increasing drastically.
Vietnam? Surely those old US vietnam war veterans are going to cheer up their great grandsons and ask them to be strong when defending the same communist vietnamese government they fought against 50 years ago.
> I agree that a dictator starting a reckless regional conflict is a safe bet.
Would you say it is more or less safe than an elected official starting up a conflict to distract people around re-election time?
> Be it Taiwan
The PRC is already at war with Taiwan, and has been for decades now. As far as wars go, it's pretty bloodless, with the PRC only saber-rattling when Taiwan purchases and places new US weapons, but other than that both parties don't want to rock the boat, because that's bad for business.
So unless some idiot tries to get in between and force the issue, it's pretty safe to assume there will be no armed conflict in the near future between the PRC and Taiwan.
You can frame it as you like, going from a corrupt one-party system to a corrupt dictatorship is never a good thing. Neither internally, nor for investments, nor for trade.
As for Taiwan loosing their independence and getting occupied by China. Well, that's one of the few credible scenarios for a start of WW3, so it's also not in anyone's interests.
>My understanding is that Xi wants to be in the office so Taiwan can re-united within his Presidency
My god that was my exact same thought. But it is hard to explain to people who dont know much about China, how Chinese values this deeply. Much more so then whatever hundred of billions that will cost them.
Having said that, I still dont see how this is going to happen, even within his life time.
Edit: I have had this argument on Twitter. With people keep calling for democracy on China or whatever. And when people like dis-sys say something that does not align with their view, they immediately thought this person is all for Communism, dictatorship, one part system. I dont know about dis-sys, but I certainly don't. What I am saying / writing, is what I think is going happen ( Analysis ). NOT what I want to happen ( Wish ). It is entirely two different things.
Taiwan is most certainly relevant because it is free. I’ve spent a lot of time in Taiwan. The people I’ve encountered there don’t seem to have any desire to reunite with the mainland. Additionally Taiwan now has a functioning democracy and I am impressed with what they’ve accomplished. I also think Taiwan is well on its way to becoming culturally distinct from mainland China. I can’t put my finger on it exactly but it’s a strong feeling I have from visiting both places a lot. Any push by China to force Taiwan to reunite with China I feel will lead to war with the US. As an American, I feel we have an obligation to protect Taiwan and would strongly support defending Taiwan.
I have seen changes of power of governments after 16 years. The result is always that corruption is discovered. After 16 years politicians have had time to get used to power and to put friendly people as public service officers. When power shifts corruption surfaces. The longer the term, the more corruption is found. Some parties are worse than others, but all are worst at the end of a decade that when they began.
It is my experience, and it seems logical. But I don't know if there is studies about this effect.
You are saying that the corruption is established during the rule (before the change of power) but is more likely to be uncovered upon the change of power, correct?
As opposed to the corruption coming about because of the change of power, which is how I'm afraid some people could read your comment if they skim quickly.
Assuming that's what you mean, yes it makes a lot of sense.
To put it another way, stability of power tends to allow corruption to remain hidden.
So all the people who are reaping the benefits of corruption will love the idea of Xi staying in power.
> You are saying that the corruption is established during the rule (before the change of power) but is more likely to be uncovered upon the change of power, correct?
Yes. In the corruption cases the involved party is the exiting one. As it loses power it can't keep the grip on the public officials and justice is free to work again.
City councils are an extreme example, as they can hold power for decades.
> As opposed to the corruption coming about because of the change of power, which is how I'm afraid some people could read your comment if they skim quickly.
You are right. It's just that I found the concept so implausible that I didn't though about that misread.
The skeptic in me would say that the new rulers try to discredit their predecessors with allegations of corruption. Not saying you're wrong, but you can't assume the 'challengers' to the establishment always have altruistic motives. Lots of revolutions go completely sideways...
> The skeptic in me would say that the new rulers try to discredit their predecessors with allegations of corruption.
The public servants are the ones that do this, not the new politicians. These actions involve police, judges, etc.
The allegations of corruption are there for every political campaign. One party will try to discredit the other one to lower their amount of votes. It makes little sense for politicians to bring corruption cases out of a political campaign. And sadly enough corruption is usually not one of the top topics of political campaigns as all parties have some corruption cases and most voters react the most to other more divisive - and probably irrelevant - issues.
Modern China has a political system where nobility of 60 million people who mostly inherited their position have the power. They select some of the people who start slowly ascend towards real power over decades. Those who get into power have expiry date and they must step down and let others in.
It's not a democracy, it's clearly authoritarian rule of the few, but it's not a dictatorship. There is system a that allows continuity and people change.
Xi may do fine at first. After a while the need to stay in the power affects everything he does. Government organization, military organization, economics, even foreign policy. Nobody stays in power without supporters and they except to be paid.
The explanation given in first year political science was that China is a very rare example of a successful party-based dictatorship, as opposed to a dictatorship based on an individual or family.
Well, plenty of the richest people in China has no connection with the red families. The most prominent companies in China now, like Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, are all founded by regular people. Who would have thought Jack Ma would become the richest people in China?
That’s only a small part of the economy. If you at everything from SOEs to taxi companies to jewelry cartels to real estate agencies, it’s mostly all red.
This is true, but those people enjoy their wealth only at the sufferance of the party oligarchy; they take their marching orders on any political issue from the party and if they ever challenged the party oligarchy on any issue their wealth would evaporate and / or they would be forced into exile. They don't form a separate locus of power that is separate from the party elite, they're completely subservient to it.
It appears quite many of the richest people in China have no political ties now. In fact most rich people in the past decade are either in tech (there are plenty of them as China's tech industry is not any less vibrant than silicon valley now), or in real estate. Yes, Wang Jianlin is from a red family, but there're many that're not.
Plenty of my alumni from Zhejiang University founded their own companies in China. I don't think they are any different from startup founders here in SF.
I am often amused and amazed that many, whom has never been to China, does not speak or read the language, has no idea about its history and culture which spans thousands of years , only read about it on mainstream media and then pretend to know more then the Chinese themselves.
Perhaps you are mistaking people's expression of knowing things about reality, for an expression of knowing things about China.
It's OK for people to know things about reality. You shouldn't get offended by that.
How about an example.
Reality: Striving for safety is a good thing to do when developing a space program.
China: We strive for safety, but our situation is special and outsiders who criticize our safety don't understand our situation. We have safety, but we call it "safety with Chinese characteristics."
Here is an example of safety with Chinese characteristics. You see the rocket explode, just as western rockets often do as well. What is different is how the rocket is allowed to launch near a populated area, and how instead of having a self-destruct mechanism on failure, it is allowed to continue straight down into an area filled with houses. (Previously filled with houses, that is. Not anymore).
Again, the Chinese government would call this safety with Chinese characteristics ("x with Chinese characteristics" is their term, not mine). But that doesn't make this disregard of human life right. One doesn't have to be Chinese to understand that. One only has to be human. We non-Chinese humans also have thousands of years of history, you do realize that right?
So people can know it to be true whether they've been to China or not. Apparently, the Chinese government rocket scientists, who should be pretty smart Chinese people who even come from the culture that invented rockets long before anyone else, do not know as much as that.
> whom has never been to China, does not speak or read the language, has no idea about its history and culture which spans thousands of years , only read about it on mainstream media and then pretend to know more then the Chinese themselves.
It's easy to ask a Chinese on Twitter or Facebook or even on Youtube comment section.
And as a Chinese, I can tell you about my feeling on this: I Don't Like It.
I will one day truly respect CCP AFTER they remove themselves from The Constitution.
So I guess the flip side of that is that no Chinese person is able to have an informed opinion about the US? Do you feel comfortable applying the rule both ways?
Possibly an unpopular opinion, but at least it is Xi Jinping. China's system I think is rather horrid but numerous reports over the years suggest Xi is moderate, not an ideologue and leans slightly pro-West. Classified cables released by Wikileaks also point in this direction. If I am off the mark on this, please correct me as I find the area interesting.
Based on those cables, he was bred by the party elite to rule. He and his family have been the party for 2 generations, the entirety of that horrific stuff has gone on under their moderate watch.
Xi is scarier than others like Erdogan and Putin because he's not an outright villain, but that benign acceptance and normalization of humans rights abuses goes on while we buy phones from them and he and the party get further and further cemented into power.
That's horrifying, with a villain at least people would wake up.
Not anymore. Xi is now the ultimate power in China and will eventually bend the party to his will by any means necessary. I would expect political imprisonments/assassinations to markedly increase moving forward.
Looks like only part of the proposal got onto the front page of news [0]. The proposal itself has plenty of other contents that are interesting [1], especially the one on supervisory commission (the anti-corruption body) [2].
Tenure for life in leading posts is linked both to feudal influences and to the continued absence of proper regulations in the Party for the retirement and dismissal of cadres. ... During the “Cultural Revolution”, Lin Biao and the Gang of Four did everything to procure a privileged life style for themselves and inflicted great suffering upon the masses. At present there are still some cadres who, regarding themselves as masters rather than servants of the people, use their positions to seek personal privileges. This practice has aroused strong mass resentment and tarnished the Party’s prestige. Unless it is firmly corrected, it is bound to corrupt our cadres.
President in China is a ceremonial title. It was only after Deng that it was consolidated with general party secretary, which Deng was definitely during his reign. Edit: oops, no, he wasn’t party secretary; this was held by Zhao Zhiyang and (after 1989) Jiang Zemin.
281 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 266 ms ] threadhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
PS: You see this everywhere from China, Russia, India, on one end and Japan and Europe on the other. Even local governments and homeowners associations like to review old contracts as the people in power shift.
What we think of as "corruption" would be better be termed "patronage", and it is the natural and default mode of political behaviour for human beings. It is impersonal, merit and market based systems that are the aberration, historically speaking. And, in the absence of strong institutions preventing it, societies inevitably revert to being patronage-based.
For example, imagine you are interviewing two people for a job. One is an extremely well-qualified and capable stranger. The other is a mediocre candidate, but is the son of a friend of your uncle. Who do you give the job to? For many people in the world, the idea that you would even consider not giving the job to the son of your uncle's friend is heresy. And they would not consider that attitude in any sense immoral or improper. Indeed, being in a position to help yourself and your acquaintances, and instead choosing to assist a stranger would instead be the perverse choice.
In a wider sense, within patrimonial societies there is never any question of ending patronage altogether. Instead, elite patronage networks compete with each other, and "anti-corruption" drives are about the dominant patronage-network cementing power and punishing another. We often see this in countries where every change in the government is accompanied by the prosecution of the old leaders for corruption by the new, only for the new themselves to be prosecuted a few years later upon leaving office.
Xi's efforts might be presented as being "anti-corruption" in nature, but they are very much about securing the position of himself and his patronage network. If he was serious about stopping corruption altogether, he would be concentrating on reforming China's institutions to make them more transparent, more merit-based and less susceptible to centralised political control. Instead, he's removing obstacles to himself and his patrons remaining in power indefinitely.
> son of your uncle's friend
And for the point of discussion how is this any different from the privileged power structures?
Oh wait.
Whataboutism, a #1 go-to tactic in dictatorships.
Besides, Hu's thought is to be put into Constitution after he had stepped down for 5 years. Xi's thought will appear in the Constitution when he is in the middle of paramount power.
It may be the same for Xi. It is all or nothing now for the few of his remaining opponents.
A lot of smart people actually deny that.
In other news: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/germany-books-...
I don't know: digital rights, digital privacy, climate change? Those all sounds fairly modern to me.
> heavyweight
What other large political institution in the world says "Nope, not with our citizens" to big data, and actually sees it through?
> the demise of Europe
has been greatly exaggerated.
For your data point, I can assure you that eu govs are just lagging behind, they failed to keep pace. They will get there, trust me.
In other news, more US-centric brainwashing coming soon...
You don't need US-centric brainwashing to understand the difference between Germany, with our seven(!) major parties, and China.
There are many parallels between Germany and China. The population gets low wages in order to facilitate exports, which benefits the ruling classes and the civil servants.
The lavishly paid functionaries of the state television keep people calm.
Comparing China's system with Germany's makes a lot of sense, but you have to do it correctly. If Xi would be a chancellor with limited power in a parliament that consists of members of 6 different parties, then it would be less of a problem if he ran as a candidate in a third election.
While in China, there's a 22nd amendment inspired safeguard in the constitution, specifically to prevent another Mao-like figure from coming to power. The safeguard is being removed specifically for Xi: you can't seriously argue he's irreplaceable across the population of 1.7 billion. The country turns from being run by an authoritarian committee to a personal dictatorship.
And thus begins the decline of China.
You are welcome to illustrate with a counterpoint. Something more recent than two millennia ago, preferably.
However in an autocracy with no other clearly defined mechanism to constrain the power of a leader, term limits at least fulfil that function. The danger is that with no fixed constraints or limits on power in such a system, if a monster gains power or if power creates a monster, there’s nothing anyone can do. The question is, does the risk of that happening outweigh the risk of ejecting a capable leader from power earlier than necessary.
So even if you think Hu a Jintao is the best leader for China now and after 2 terms, the precedent could lead to someone you think is a terrible leader gaining perpetual power later.
The real checks on an autocratic leader are rivalries within the ruling party's elite, and once a leader like Xi has achieved dominance there, then amending the constitution to remove the term limit clause is trivial.
China is setting the stage for an actual dictator.
If Linus were bad at his job, you'd only have to find someone better and start pulling your kernel source from them. No civil war necessary.
- The risk that a stable leader with increasingly unlimited power will lead to stagnation, deep corruption, or war.
- The risk that a disruptive leader emerges after Xi and is not countered in time by government mechanisms (e.g. internal elections within the party).
Historic consensus seems to be that the former is the bigger danger, which is why even the CCP previously put a limit on presidential terms.
It's more about an institution vs a single man.
As a party dictatorship with routinely transitioned politicians, China's government has been fairly stable in recent times. Xi clearly isn't necessary in any regard, he's trying to make himself necessary. Hu Jintao was a stable leader that oversaw one of the fastest economic expansions in world history. He also wasn't necessary, in terms of remaining perpetually in power. Xi inherited that nicely built-up economic position. It's the policies that Xi follows/implements that will determine investor confidence, just as it was for Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin (also a stable leader that didn't need to remain in power perpetually). Xi is properly replaceable like the others, insofar as he doesn't implement political changes that forcibly make him otherwise. The power move that Xi appears to be going for, is all down to his personality, rather than necessity, which is in stark contrast with the prior two Presidents.
Even In the longer ter, individual investors may well personally do very well (be on the good side of the supreme ruler and the possibilities are very good).
But he didn't repeal a term limit. There was a two-term limit in precedent, but not in law, so FDR didn't have to repeal anything. But people saw that, and put a two-term limit in law. Any future FDR or Xi in the US will have to change the law. And yes, that will set off warning alarms in the US, if it ever happens.
Agreed.
> ... warnings won't be enough to stop it from happening.
Here I disagree. For it to happen in the US now would require a constitutional amendment. I don't see any way that would happen now. Especially since seeking one would make the alarm bells ring much louder.
Or, for it to happen now would take ignoring the constitution. I'm pretty sure that would trigger a civil war.
Either way, in the US it's much harder than just having a party congress decide that it will be so.
But then, he's 64, he has another 5 legit years, so he'll be 69 when his 2 terms end. He might not have that much time. But who knows...
Why - will such a civil war spill beyond China's borders?
An invasion of Taiwan would likely garner a similar response. Heightened tensions, international sanctions that don’t seem to do much, and yes, increased military presence in nearby allies. Outright war would be costly and endless and frankly unwinnable.
> Outright war would be costly and endless and frankly unwinnable.
I'm not sure why you think this is the case. If the US were to try to invade China, then yeah it would basically be unwinnable. But why would the US do that? They would only be trying to contain them. If they could help thwart and invasion and then shutdown the Chinese navy, then they would basically already have won by any reasonable measure.
The U.S. doesn't have much history promising Ukraine defense as it was part of the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. In contrast, Taiwan was practically there since 1949.
Taiwan's economy is multiple times the size of Ukraine's and is comparable to the likes of Saudi Arabia. To not defend Taiwan would send a very bad signal to all American allies that unless you're worth more than Taiwan, we'll sell you out. Assuming China continues to grow more powerful, this also means South Korea would be in danger as well. This is not even accounting the fact that if China controls Taiwan, China will control a majority of sea lanes to Korea and Japan. If she wished then she could interfere with oil supplies to those countries.
Plus the U.S. already goes great lengths to restrict China from acquiring U.S. technology, much of which has supply lines and partners in Taiwan. Letting China take Taiwan would mean a massive change unless you think we'll just accept that every Taiwanese company now will be forced to put backdoors for the Chinese.
I know you're joking, but ...
it was a cyber war, and it's still happening :)
North Korea is so fragile that it would follow shortly thereafter. South Korea (a US ally) would have a huge mess on their hands.
Japan (another US ally) has got an ocean to protect it, but given the huge shipping volume in the region, shiploads of refugees would try crossing anyway.
So that means that the US would have even more reason to intervene than in other conflicts.
I don't know how much Russia cares about it's eastern territory, but it's unlikely they'd sit around doing nothing.
By now there are 4 countries with nuclear weapons involved, and I haven't even mentioned India and Pakistan, who usually don't appear to be the interventionist type, but they have a common border with China. Who knows how they might react.
Basically, any war involving China is bound to be WW3 levels of bad.
In China's specific case, India and China are fighting over borders. China and the US (allies) are running into issues over resources in the South China Sea. Also Russia and the US both are increasingly their navy presence in the Pacific. It's a powder keg waiting to go off for sure.
Xi is a fine leader — I don't believe problems would start with him. More so his successor who may have decades of rule.
The Chinese communist obviously don't have a democratic mandate. But I think it would be a mistake to think that they don't have widespread popular support.
The problem with the CCP is that there is no real feedback loop. Their support is very fragile, and it would just take one recession to break it (they have no "lets throw the turkey's out" pressure valve).
My guess is that CCP is going to be popular and safe at the realm as long as growth is strong (so maybe we agree there).
People in China can only express their discontent by rioting (which happens in China, a lot). They have no other real way of communicating with officials, they can't even make sneaky jokes on the internet anymore to express their dissatisfaction. That alone is a very dangerous situation.
The point is, no matter how great Hu is as an individual the danger is that granting him perpetual unquestioned power creates a precedent for a future monster to gain a similar lock on power. In a democracy, the voters can depose a monster peacefully. In the cureent Chinese system a monster would only get 2 terms. So the question is, are you prepared to accept Hu getting power to life, at the risk of a future person to get it being a Mugabe, or Gaddafi, or Amin?
In a system with very few constraints on absolute power, is it really prudent in the long term to remove all of the remaining ones? Finally, how much can you trust the judgement of someone willing to impose that risk on his country for his own benefit?
Alternatively (with apologies for playing a bit fast and loose in terms of President/Prime Minister/Secretary - political systems come in many shapes and sizes) and note that in some of these political party doesn't make much sense - when a military strongman stages a coup and holds power for a decade and a half, is there really a ruling political party?
Definitely some decades in there.Obviously, no: the headline is significant; east asian governments are subject to policy change and reform even within a single party rule; and this is a canard. There is a difference between indefinite rule by an abstract "party" and indefinite rule by an actual person. And China is crossing that gap.
[1]: https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/02/growth-an...
[2]: https://www.ft.com/content/8b5ae298-a065-11e2-a6e1-00144feab...
[3]: http://www.moneyobserver.com/opinion/gdp-makes-stocks-grow-f...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-corruption_campaign_under...
The conflict had been part of keeping things moving forward, but I didn't recognize it.
----
Original comment:
I am having trouble seeing why this was brought to mind for you. Was the moral of your story, for you, that when members argue bitterly ("didn't get along at all") to the point of one of them resigning, it means things are moving along?
Okay but what reminded you of the Xi story - there was really no arguments mentioned?
If I extrapolate your lesson too far (I don't think this is what you're saying) it could be that you say, where there is no bitter member conflict, projects die? So, if the members agree that Xi should stay in power, without bitter argument, it is a sign the Party is dying?
That seems absurd. But then I just don't understand why you thought of your anecdote.
EDIT: I'd just like to understand your point.
It happens in corporations. It happens in political systems.
Take someone like Steve Jobs. He was emperor, in this example. That was particularly the case in his second stint at Apple. His personality sparked friction however, he cultivated it on purpose, constantly seeking it out. He wanted to fight over ideas and got upset when people wouldn't fight with him. Had he not done so, stagnation would be the only possible outcome given his managerial dominance, it would have led to a yes-man system, and Jobs would have been flying entirely blind (his yes-men would hide everything from him, lie to him, tell him only what he wanted to hear, etc). For example, there's a lot of evidence that eg Saddam Hussein and Hitler's yes-men regularly attempted to lie to them, hide facts from them, etc. due to the consequences.
Gates and Bezos also likewise cultivate/d friction, despite being emperor equivalents in their companies. Gates liked to aggressively challenge people to combat him on ideas. He inserted friction. He similarly would get upset if you walked away from a battle without resolution (Paul Allen describes that in his book).
Putin and Stalin as dictators and personality contrasts, crush/ed friction, and ruled by strict edict. They require/d unquestioning allegiance and obedience, seeking minimal challenges to their approaches and ideas. That's extremely common in political dictatorships. That approach can only lead to stagnation, which you have historically universally seen in political dictatorships. Obama has a good quip about this aspect of political life in his episode of Jerry Seinfeld's Comedian in Cars, in terms of interacting with dictator types.
Mussolini was not different. For example whenever he went to visit a military airport, they would bring airplanes from all over Italy to increase the numbers. What he thought was part of a big airforce were in fact the same planes over and over. When he went to war with Hitler he probably thought he had a good army. In practice since the suppliers of the army where chosen through corruption and nepotism, the soldiers couldn't even get working boots.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22738710
The drive to please higher-ups/Putin is quiet strong there. See their election turnout "encouragements".
One of Bill Clinton's qualities, is he listens to everybody and speaks and engages with them on a personal level. In most cases the leader is just a judge on a excellent team. Team does most of the work.
Once China's middle class starts spending more on foreign goods you will see many businesses and companies cater to their needs like how the current status is to cater to the North American market.
Regardless, it seems like the case for term-limits is stronger now, than it’s ever been.
My understanding is that Xi wants to be in the office so Taiwan can re-united within his Presidency. This will be considered as the whole reunification of China which carries the ultimate importance in Chinese value system and history. Taiwan itself in that process is _NOT_ relevant, it is an island generating 3% of China's GDP with less than 2% of the population. However, a bold however, being able to do that implies the largely withdraw of the American influence from the west pacific. It is THE symbol of the rise of China.
He is not just asking for his 3rd term. President Xi Jinpin is asking to be the leader in charge to manage and witness the above mentioned transformation.
Vietnam? Surely those old US vietnam war veterans are going to cheer up their great grandsons and ask them to be strong when defending the same communist vietnamese government they fought against 50 years ago.
Gee, that will be an embarrassing moment.
Would you say it is more or less safe than an elected official starting up a conflict to distract people around re-election time?
> Be it Taiwan
The PRC is already at war with Taiwan, and has been for decades now. As far as wars go, it's pretty bloodless, with the PRC only saber-rattling when Taiwan purchases and places new US weapons, but other than that both parties don't want to rock the boat, because that's bad for business.
So unless some idiot tries to get in between and force the issue, it's pretty safe to assume there will be no armed conflict in the near future between the PRC and Taiwan.
China is not a democracy, not sure what are you getting at.
As for Taiwan loosing their independence and getting occupied by China. Well, that's one of the few credible scenarios for a start of WW3, so it's also not in anyone's interests.
My god that was my exact same thought. But it is hard to explain to people who dont know much about China, how Chinese values this deeply. Much more so then whatever hundred of billions that will cost them.
Having said that, I still dont see how this is going to happen, even within his life time.
Edit: I have had this argument on Twitter. With people keep calling for democracy on China or whatever. And when people like dis-sys say something that does not align with their view, they immediately thought this person is all for Communism, dictatorship, one part system. I dont know about dis-sys, but I certainly don't. What I am saying / writing, is what I think is going happen ( Analysis ). NOT what I want to happen ( Wish ). It is entirely two different things.
Taiwanese people don't value it deeply. They'd prefer to be left alone in their happy, prosperous, democratic, multiparty country.
Chinese people are highly brainwashed on the subject.
It is my experience, and it seems logical. But I don't know if there is studies about this effect.
As opposed to the corruption coming about because of the change of power, which is how I'm afraid some people could read your comment if they skim quickly.
Assuming that's what you mean, yes it makes a lot of sense.
To put it another way, stability of power tends to allow corruption to remain hidden.
So all the people who are reaping the benefits of corruption will love the idea of Xi staying in power.
Yes. In the corruption cases the involved party is the exiting one. As it loses power it can't keep the grip on the public officials and justice is free to work again.
City councils are an extreme example, as they can hold power for decades.
> As opposed to the corruption coming about because of the change of power, which is how I'm afraid some people could read your comment if they skim quickly.
You are right. It's just that I found the concept so implausible that I didn't though about that misread.
Thank you for the clarification.
The public servants are the ones that do this, not the new politicians. These actions involve police, judges, etc.
The allegations of corruption are there for every political campaign. One party will try to discredit the other one to lower their amount of votes. It makes little sense for politicians to bring corruption cases out of a political campaign. And sadly enough corruption is usually not one of the top topics of political campaigns as all parties have some corruption cases and most voters react the most to other more divisive - and probably irrelevant - issues.
It's not a democracy, it's clearly authoritarian rule of the few, but it's not a dictatorship. There is system a that allows continuity and people change.
Xi may do fine at first. After a while the need to stay in the power affects everything he does. Government organization, military organization, economics, even foreign policy. Nobody stays in power without supporters and they except to be paid.
The explanation given in first year political science was that China is a very rare example of a successful party-based dictatorship, as opposed to a dictatorship based on an individual or family.
Plenty of my alumni from Zhejiang University founded their own companies in China. I don't think they are any different from startup founders here in SF.
I am often amused and amazed that many, whom has never been to China, does not speak or read the language, has no idea about its history and culture which spans thousands of years , only read about it on mainstream media and then pretend to know more then the Chinese themselves.
It's OK for people to know things about reality. You shouldn't get offended by that.
How about an example.
Reality: Striving for safety is a good thing to do when developing a space program.
China: We strive for safety, but our situation is special and outsiders who criticize our safety don't understand our situation. We have safety, but we call it "safety with Chinese characteristics."
Here is an example of safety with Chinese characteristics. You see the rocket explode, just as western rockets often do as well. What is different is how the rocket is allowed to launch near a populated area, and how instead of having a self-destruct mechanism on failure, it is allowed to continue straight down into an area filled with houses. (Previously filled with houses, that is. Not anymore).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ9ue6GKek
Again, the Chinese government would call this safety with Chinese characteristics ("x with Chinese characteristics" is their term, not mine). But that doesn't make this disregard of human life right. One doesn't have to be Chinese to understand that. One only has to be human. We non-Chinese humans also have thousands of years of history, you do realize that right?
So people can know it to be true whether they've been to China or not. Apparently, the Chinese government rocket scientists, who should be pretty smart Chinese people who even come from the culture that invented rockets long before anyone else, do not know as much as that.
It's easy to ask a Chinese on Twitter or Facebook or even on Youtube comment section.
And as a Chinese, I can tell you about my feeling on this: I Don't Like It.
I will one day truly respect CCP AFTER they remove themselves from The Constitution.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BEIJING3128_a.html
Xi is scarier than others like Erdogan and Putin because he's not an outright villain, but that benign acceptance and normalization of humans rights abuses goes on while we buy phones from them and he and the party get further and further cemented into power.
That's horrifying, with a villain at least people would wake up.
The party is the power. There is no other power in China.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/ http://www.bbc.com/
[1] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/25/c_136999077.htm
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-politics-corruption...
Deng Xiaoping, 1980 https://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/on-the-re...