
China Seeks to Repeal Presidential Term Limit - vincvinc
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-25/china-seeks-to-repeal-president-s-term-limit-opening-way-for-xi
======
ilamont
_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._

Deng Xiaoping, 1980 [https://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/on-
the-re...](https://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/on-the-reform-
of-the-system-of-party-and-state-leadership/)

~~~
fspeech
Deng had a lot of informal power and never held the title of president. Deng's
power was not subject to any term limit.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
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.

~~~
fspeech
Deng was not the party's general secretary either during his reign. However he
was the nexus of the party, the informal "paramount leader".

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Ah, you are right. Sorry for my mistake.

------
geff82
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.

~~~
tzahola
So you’re saying the Linux kernel would get better if we overthrew Linus?

~~~
yorwba
The problem with dictators is not that they are all bad for their countries,
it's that replacing a bad dictator is too difficult.

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.

~~~
barrkel
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.

~~~
devgrammy
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)...

------
ttflee
The new proposal of amendment to the Constitution of China, if you could call
it, contains large sections about supervisory commissions. This commissions
and subordinate branches would be able to oversee and veto any inferior level
legislative branches although appointed by the legislative branch of the same
level. This means the newfound commission would be a hierarchy under Xi and
controls underlying administrative, legislative and any other organizations
and persons. IMHO it is likely to become something vaguely resembles ICAC in
Hong Kong, or NKVD in Soviet. Xi knows.

[http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/25/c_136999323.htm](http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/25/c_136999323.htm)

[http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/25/c_136998986.htm](http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/25/c_136998986.htm)

------
nabla9
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.

~~~
thomasfoster96
> it's not a dictatorship.

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.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
A few red families control much of china’s wealth and political power now. It
is quickly changing into a more traditional dictatorship.

~~~
zdky
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?

~~~
echevil
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.

------
CapitalistCartr
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.

~~~
logicallee
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.

EDIT: I'd just like to understand your point.

~~~
adventured
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.

~~~
mrighele
> 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.

~~~
_0ffh
Yeah, like e.g. fake storefronts at G8 summits.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-
ireland-22738710](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22738710)

~~~
nasredin
IIRC Russia has entire fake building facades for the upcoming World Cup.

The drive to please higher-ups/Putin is quiet strong there. See their election
turnout "encouragements".

------
hanklazard
This obviously feels like a move in the wrong direction, but at the same time,
in a single-party government, how much will it really matter? I'm not trying
to be cynical, it's an honest question.

Relatedly, could moves like this actually encourage some sort of reaction by
the people against their authoritarian government?

~~~
mtgx
It could, but if the revolutionary are to achieve success, many would need to
react at the same time so the impact is swift and "unmanageable" by the
Chinese government. It's not a coincidence that China recently filled all
streets with one of the most advanced AI-powered video surveillance systems in
the world ahead of this announcement.

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-surveillance-
came...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-surveillance-camera-big-
brother_us_5a2ff4dfe4b01598ac484acc)

If the Chinese government is able to "kill" (not necessarily in a metaphoric
way) any small groups organizing against the government, then it will be very
difficult to change this.

If Putin succeeded in becoming a dictator in Russia, I think it's going to be
easier for Xi to become a dictator and maintain his power in China.

I'm afraid it may be more likely for some of the Chinese elites that secretly
hate and oppose Xi to start something up than for the population to rise _at
this point_ in time. Maybe in 20 years, the frustration in the population
would bubble up and they could do something about it en mass. Or China could
become a bigger version of North Korea.

The advancements in technology don't really seem to be on the people's side
either, other than censorship-resistant (a key point, as not all are)
blockchain technologies. But I'm not sure these P2P technologies will advance
fast enough to stay ahead of Surveillance AI.

~~~
dbspin
"If Putin succeeded in becoming a dictator in Russia, I think it's going to be
easier for Xi to become a dictator and maintain his power in China."

Not sure what this means... In what sense is Putin not a dictator already?
Despite the illusion of free elections (almost universal in dictatorships),
widespread vote tampering, the imprisonment of opponents and prohibition of
alternative parties make his rule absolute.

~~~
chki
I think you are misunderstanding mtgx. He says that Putin has already suceeded
in becoming a dictator (hence the past tense). If he has already suceeded it
should be easy for Xi to become a dictator.

~~~
pm90
Heh, my first reaction was the same as mtgx. Look at the dictators/semi-
dictators/wannabe-dictators in major countries around the world now:

1\. USA - Trump

2\. Turkey - Erdogen

3\. Russia - Putin

4\. India - Modi

Meanwhile Macron won a highly contested race in France against a far right
candidate, Merkel did something similar.

When the democracies in the world are in such disarray and can't band together
to collectively act as a check on authoritarianism, it emboldens the latter.

------
Alex3917
The government should just use an exponential decay like on HN or Reddit,
where something can theoretically stay on the front page forever but it needs
exponentially more votes to do so over time.

~~~
sandworm101
Dictators do tend to command high vote counts. When people see you are going
to stick around they try to keep you happy. As in russia, the province that
most supports the leader recieves the most from him in turn.

~~~
Mikeb85
I'd argue that countries who've experinced hardship have a tendency to favour
stability and economic prosperity.

Pretty sure Putin stays in power because people still remember Yeltsin.
Today's Russia is a massive improvement on 90's Russia.

As for Xi, China isn't exactly doing poorly. Not sure why anyone would want to
shake things up now.

Americans should understand, Obama would have beat Trump...

~~~
fjsolwmv
If Putin were so popular he wouldn't have to suppress and murder his
opposition

~~~
Mikeb85
Are you referring to Nemtsov? Because he was definitely more useful alive,
being a vestige of the old failure of a "pro-western" regime and all...

Or are you referring to his other opposition, which are paid by the US to
commit crimes, and still barely get a slap on the wrist?

------
fbytr
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.

~~~
jcranmer
Mugabe was deposed a few months ago. Although, before then, he was the poster
child for "why independence leaders need to learn to give up power."

~~~
fjsolwmv
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

------
Osterzone
Chinese internet had been shocked by the news this evening .Now the govermet
has blocked all the key words.Xi has became the second Deng Xiaoping in
numbers of people’s mind,so I don’t know whether Chinese people can stand out
to oppose this.In recent years,there was a Putin Adoring trend in the Chinese
internet.I guess this was induced by goverment

------
kartan
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.

~~~
natch
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.

~~~
kartan
> 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.

Thank you for the clarification.

------
chrisaycock
I once read a statement that if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then
endless power corrupts endlessly. Term limits are one of the most effective
checks on a county's leadership because those with power will eventually find
themselves without.

~~~
xbmcuser
Term limits are needed not just for the highest office but all elected
officials. In my opinion the mess US is in currently is because of long term
career politicians that are beholden to special interest groups. If they were
limited to 1 or 2 terms most of them would care less about courting donations.

~~~
bcgraham
The flip side to this is having a legislature who will _never_ have career
lawmakers, and so will never have the kind of experience or insight one gets
from doing something as a long-term career. It also invites people to run for
legislative bodies as a kind of super-credential, like getting a master's
degree; it becomes a resume-builder.

~~~
rgarrett88
You can have career lawmakers, just not in the same office. Cycling
politicians between local, state, national would probably do a lot of good for
each level.

------
vincvinc
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.

~~~
SubiculumCode
You mean his aggressive and hyper nationalistic policies that destabilizing
the China Sea?

------
dictum
When you buy the _harmony_ shibboleth, don't be surprised when you get
_harmony_ forever, in the form of absence of any opposition to the status quo.

------
paradite
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].

[0] [https://www.reuters.com/](https://www.reuters.com/)
[http://www.bbc.com/](http://www.bbc.com/)

[1]
[http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/25/c_136999077.htm](http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/25/c_136999077.htm)

[2] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-politics-
corruption...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-politics-
corruption/china-to-list-supervisory-commission-as-new-state-organ-in-
constitution-idUSKCN1G9074)

------
baybal2
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.

------
alva
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.

[https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BEIJING3128_a.html](https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BEIJING3128_a.html)

~~~
aaron-lebo
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.

~~~
hackme1234
>the party get further and further cemented into power.

The party is the power. There is no other power in China.

~~~
joejerryronnie
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.

------
mc32
So is this the return to Maoist politics? Hope they learned a lesson from
those days --getting rid if corruption is one thing, but concentrating power
into a dictatoriat dies not bode well.

------
enitihas
Given that he was given the same status as Mao by including Xi Jinping thought
in the Chinese Constitution, this was sure coming.

~~~
WiSaGaN
This is misleading. The amendment also added Hu's "thought". Basically the
Constitution includes all of previous paramount leaders' "thought".

~~~
kercker
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.

~~~
WiSaGaN
And Xi's thought name is the longest, which means he will be worse than Mao.

------
gigatexal
Yup. I’m only an armchair CEO but I’d never do business in China if I could
afford it.

~~~
azemetre
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.

~~~
gigatexal
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.

------
Tasboo
Ironic that this is the president of rooting out corruption.

~~~
stupidcar
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.

~~~
vikiomega9
And how does this notion of corruption compare to systems such as lobbying?

> son of your uncle's friend

And for the point of discussion how is this any different from the privileged
power structures?

~~~
nasredin
And what about...

Oh wait.

Whataboutism, a #1 go-to tactic in dictatorships.

------
vikiomega9
This is very annoying, I honestly thought China would continue to present a
very real challenge to American hegemony and keep it in check

------
risent
1\. A bad plan is better than no plan.

2\. An institution establishment requires several generations hard word.

3\. Society will be more fragmented.

4\. The big bomb in the future.

------
hypertexthero
> Education on the value of free speech and the other freedoms reserved by the
> Bill of Rights, about what happens when you don’t have them, and about how
> to exercise and protect them, should be an essential prerequisite for being
> an American citizen—or indeed a citizen of any nation, the more so to the
> degree that such rights remain unprotected. If we can’t think for ourselves,
> if we’re unwilling to question authority, then we’re just putty in the hands
> of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own
> opinions, then those in power work for _us_. In every country, we should be
> teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of
> Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In
> the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may
> be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.

—Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark

------
ttflee
Brezhnev stayed for 18 years until his demise.

------
noetic_techy
So progressive. So ahead of the curve. Meanwhile the US is stagnate here with
its term limits. /s

------
thefounder
Dictatorship and communism work hand in hand!

------
badmessages
i don’t need a king! it’s a bad news. i am a chinese.

------
dis-sys
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.

~~~
Moodles
Are you seriously comparing Merkel to Xi? Or the political structure of
Germany to China?

~~~
dis-sys
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? ;)

~~~
Jdam
Some might argue that she indeed shaped the future of this world by
accelerating the demise of Europe as a modern and heavyweight force in the
world.

~~~
toyg
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.

~~~
Jdam
> she helped resolving them in ways that undeniably benefited Germany

A lot of smart people actually deny that.

~~~
aluhut
Which ones?

In other news: [http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/germany-
books-...](http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/germany-books-record-
surplus-economy-growing-53298104)

------
ktzar
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.

~~~
tptacek
Those places also have pluralism values and free and fair elections. China is
a one-party state.

~~~
petecox
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.

------
jadedhacker
I'm not very familiar with the situation in China, but I will sound a
dissenting note here and welcome correcting information by those more
knowledgable.

While Xi is certainly acting in his own interest to remove term limits, term
limits are a profoundly anti-democratic idea. A politician that is in their
final term cannot be pressured by the prospect of an election which is a, if
not the, primary mechanism of democracy.

Term limits were only instituted in the United States after FDR terrified the
business community by extracting taxes from the wealthy order of over 90%.
This was promptly followed by the red scare as the business community fought
back to destroy FDR's coalition of progressives, unions, socialists, and
communists after he died. One thing they did was impose term limits to reduce
electoral pressure on the sitting president by 50%.

Note that, on its face, Xi's plan is the opposite of a lifetime appointment.
Lifetime appointments are bad because they reduce electoral pressure by 100%.

~~~
dexterdog
The problem is that being able to campaign while abusing the power of the
office makes it hard for a challenger to unseat.

~~~
jadedhacker
That is true, but that is true for incumbents everywhere.

------
farseer
China along with Russia have already been labeled "revisionist" powers by
current policy makers in the US government. The Chinese might as well double
down on their authoritarian worldview and prove them right.

~~~
code_sloth
I'm pretty sure China and Russia don't "double down" just because US gives
them labels they don't like.

It's probably not what you meant, but as a non-US citizen, this statement
reads like (some) Americans think the entire world revolves around the US.

~~~
craftyguy
> (some) Americans think the entire world revolves around the US.

As an American citizen, you're absolutely right. Generally, we think everyone
cares about us, and we only care about our own interests.

(The HN US crowd is refreshingly not like this, generally. But that's such a
tiny portion of the population)

------
ksec
And I have said this on twitter,

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.

~~~
rqs
> 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.

~~~
ksec
I should have put this in my first comment. I don't like it because I am a
Chinese too.

------
dis-sys
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.

~~~
varjag
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.

~~~
craigsmansion
> 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.

~~~
varjag
> Would you say it is more or less safe than an elected official starting up a
> conflict to distract people around re-election time?

China is not a democracy, not sure what are you getting at.

