
Xi Jinping decides to abolish presidential term limits - devy
https://www.economist.com/news/china/21737543-unhappiness-china-palpable-xi-jinping-decides-abolish-presidential-term-limits
======
rdtsc
> The party hierarchy outranks the state one. In other countries, the
> ministers of finance and foreign affairs (government jobs) are usually the
> most important ones after the president or prime minister. In China, they
> are not even in the top 25. Neither man is a member of the Politburo, let
> alone its inner sanctum, the Politburo Standing Committee. Formally, the
> People’s Liberation Army is controlled by the party, not the government.

It was interesting to read. Some countries have an official "balance of
powers" defined in the Constitution. But even authoritarian or dictatorial
regimes have an informal balance of powers. In the old Soviet Union they
pretty much had the Politburo, the army and KGB. They kind of kept each other
in check in strange way.

Wonder where the business interests fit in the China's balance of powers. Do
large companies bribe the government officials or go through the party to get
things done and how do they interact in general.

~~~
adventured
> Do large companies bribe the government officials or go through the party to
> get things done and how do they interact in general.

For about ~15 years before Xi fully consolidated power, that's how things
routinely worked. It was run almost entirely on a bribery to get things done
approach, in the business sphere.

Xi has moved the system/party on to new goals, with the business realm no
longer having the same high order position that it previously did. I wouldn't
want to be Jack Ma or Pony Ma in the environment that's being setup now.
Alibaba and Tencent will eventually be too large for Xi's liking, if that's
not already the case.

Australia's former PM, Kevin Rudd, has an excellent write-up on all of this
(he has a particularly strong background regarding China):

[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-03/emperor-x...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-03/emperor-
xi-s-china-is-done-biding-its-time)

~~~
wahern

      > Xi has moved the system/party
    

Because Xi has circumvented several of the most important limitations (term
limits, seniority) on party and state leadership, there is no _system_
anymore. AFAIU, since Mao died, ultimate power was vested in the Politburo
Standing Committee (PSC). Cycling out of leadership posts after two terms was
simultaneously both the concrete recognition and reflection of where ultimate
power was truly vested.

The bribery was an artifact of how power was shared in the PSC, and how the
members jockeyed to maintain a balance of power. At a high level it wasn't
corruption, per se, but the system through which the PSC members could exert
influence when they weren't seated as the President, Chairman of the Central
Military Commission, etc. It effectively operated like the checks & balances
of Western institutions. If a PSC member opposed a policy preferred by the
President, those backchannels to the party base and to industry was how they
could push back, and ensured the posted leaders always had to acquiesce, to
some degree, to the PSC members.

In as much as there was corruption, well that's the price you pay for not
having a transparent system of governance with an independent civil service
and independent judiciary without concentrating too much power into the hands
of a (hopefully) benevolent dictator.

The problem is that all the senior leaders from the Maoist era are gone. The
norms of the PSC were instituted _intentionally_ to avoid the reemergence of
Maoist extremism. This generation doesn't appreciate the critical importance
of the power-sharing norms within the PSC. They think they can have their cake
and eat it too: preserve the one party Communist system and provide
streamlined, efficient governance, without instituting democratic, rule-of-law
reforms. They apparently don't appreciate the fact that once the PSC is
effectively dominated by a single individual, then the one party system is
_de_ _facto_ extinguished--the _party_ becomes subservient to a single
individual.

More importantly, like many people they don't appreciate the fact that whether
in democracy or single-party rule (which has a sort of internal democracy),
some amount of organizational inefficiency is the price you _must_ pay to keep
power from centralizing. Maximum organizational efficiency can only be
achieved in a dictatorship because that's the only way, theoretically, to
maximally minimize transaction costs. But over the long-term history has shown
that optimizing for short-term efficiency is a really bad idea and it tends to
result in very inefficient long-term outcomes.

------
joncrane
One of the few things that China's governmental system had going for them was
term limits for their head of state. This is a very unfortunate development
for the world.

~~~
dionian
It was just a term limit for the chairman of the party. The party never had a
term limit set.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Right, but the term limit became defacto when the presidency was merged with
the general secretary position. Xi could technically remain general secretary
without remaining president, but practically that is impossible at this point,
so the constitution had to be changed.

------
justinzollars
I'm reading a very good book called "China Dream: Great Power Thinking and
Strategic Power Posture in the Post-American Era"

I haven't finished it so I'll save you all from a premature review, but from
what I have read so far I believe we need a more serious national conversation
on China and the role that technology companies play in enabling
dictatorships.

~~~
mistermann
I also think in light of recent events I think we'd benefit from people
educating themselves on the actual state of free trade with respect to China,
China is far more protectionist than the US, but if we try to do something
about it, it's considered to be starting a trade war.

~~~
simonh
When it comes to trade what matters is whether or not you meet your treaty
obligations. It's a rules based process, where you agree the rules and have
some arbitration process, e.g. through the WTO.

On that basis, what matters is whether China is following the rules it, and
everyone else, agreed to. If you think some one is cheating you arbitrate. We
made a deal.

Trump is intent on blatantly breaking the rules the US has agreed to, and
breaking the deals it committed to. That is important because companies invest
billions of dollars based on the rules countries agree on trade. Arbitrarily
change the rules with no warning and those billions of dollars of investment
can become worthless and the jobs associated with them lost in Canada, the EU
and countries all over the world aside from China.

~~~
adventured
> what matters is whether China is following the rules it, and everyone else,
> agreed to

That's incorrect. China is failing, to an extraordinary degree, to comply with
what it said that it would do in being allowed into the WTO. Namely, opening
up their economy in terms of full and equal foreign access. At every step,
they've refused to go forward with that. As it turns out, most likely, they
were lying and buying time. Their goal is clearly to get large enough to not
have to ever comply. They've been very obviously following Deng Xiaoping
stated policy - 24 character strategy - of hiding their strength and biding
their time.

North Korea used the same strategy to acquire its nuclear weapons. Lie,
pretend you're going to do a thing, with no intention of doing the thing, buy
time, get the nukes, then you no longer have to comply and or you've massively
increased your bargaining position.

~~~
mistermann
It's amazing how clear this is, yet so few people can see it, it makes me
wonder if there would be less confusion if we didn't have two different
cultures involved.

Of course, Western corporations and their executives who are profiting
handsomely from it have good reason to "not notice" what's happening and
continue to talk their book, but the wilful ignorance of genuinely well-
meaning liberals is more complex.

I always wonder if Chinese leadership sometimes leans back and marvels at how
easy it is to win when the uninformed citizens of your adversaries are in an
ideological war with each other.

~~~
marnett
This is just how the state operates. It will never be transparent about just
how threatening the Chinese are and vise versa. Ignorance is bliss within the
world of global power dynamics. If you ever meet someone who works/has worked
for intelligence agencies, ask them about China. Whether they will share
anything verbal or not, their true feelings have already flushed across their
face.

~~~
mistermann
If that's true then how would you explain their obsession with the "Russian
Hackers" boogeyman, while remaining completely mum on the absolutely massive
economic and political threat China has become, which anyone could have seen
coming well over a decade ago?

------
zavi
For those who say it's OK to be a president for life because he's a competent
person: he's 64 years old. Brain deteriorates rapidly with age. The most
reasonable person today can suddenly start rounding up Chinese who post memes
on WeChat a year from now simply because of a normal biological process.
That's where you need a system in place that strips them off power very
quickly. History has had plenty Mad Kings.

~~~
koheripbal
The biggest problem is the precedent it sets. Once Julius Cesar made himself
"first citizen" and took control over the senate, absolutely NONE of his
successors relinquished power back to the Senate. ...and some of them were
disastrous leaders.

------
anthonyleecook
Some other disturbing signs from China: increasing military budget
[https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/03/06/china-splash-
us175-bil...](https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/03/06/china-splash-
us175-billion-military/), kidnapping relatives of the reporters in other
countries that exposed the uigher concentration camps
[http://m.dw.com/en/chinese-authorities-detain-relatives-
of-r...](http://m.dw.com/en/chinese-authorities-detain-relatives-of-radio-
free-asias-uighur-reporters/a-42803793), China literally banned words and
letter n in social media [https://mashable.com/2018/02/28/china-bans-n-xi-
jinping-term...](https://mashable.com/2018/02/28/china-bans-n-xi-jinping-term-
limits/), China propping up dictator in Maldives and angering India
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/w...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/world/asia/maldives-
china-india.amp.html), China threatens to invade democratic Taiwan over us
ties
[https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net.au/article/9503126](https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net.au/article/9503126)

~~~
arialeks
Is it disturbing from a US POV, or generally speaking? Because if I recall
correctly, the US military spending has gone up significantly as well, also
it's projected to rise even further in the future.

On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a
threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget? Or does it
only seem to be that smaller because their soldiers are payed less?

~~~
jimbokun
"Because if I recall correctly, the US military spending has gone up
significantly as well, also it's projected to rise even further in the
future."

US military expenditures are also very disturbing.

~~~
manfredo
The US defense expenditure as a percent of GDP has gone down as a long term
trend.

[https://goo.gl/images/sQPFFy](https://goo.gl/images/sQPFFy)

------
arieskg
I must’ve missed the part when China became a democracy. While I hold the same
fear as China continues to aggressively pursue the Orwellian path, I seldom to
see model governments that makes China second think its authoritarian
decision. After all, I can’t envision other governments wanting to become
US—-when excluding its resources. I hope we become better so we can emerge as
the role model that we once were.

~~~
ASalazarMX
> I hope we become better so we can emerge as the role model that we once
> were.

USA is still a role model on many areas: cultural, economic, military, etc. It
was never a moral role model, although that didn't deter the government of
boasting about it anyway.

~~~
throwaway7656
Economic role model? Are you even serious?

US debt on 6th of March 2000 was 5.7 trillions. [0] Today it is 20.8
trillions.

And what USA has to show for the mere 15 trillions of debt?

Affordable healthcare? Free education? Absence of homeless population? Shiny
new infrastructure? Thousands of kilometers of speed-rails connecting major
cities?

Role model. You guys are delusional. Let me tell you something like non-
american. The whole world looks at you with sheer amusement.

[0]
[https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current](https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current)

PS: The only economic achievement I can list is that US elites have managed to
alienate with their policies half of the country, so that half decided to give
country a try with some real estate tycoon who enjoys to bang pornstars in his
free time. Quite an achievement indeed. 15 trillions well spent.

~~~
ASalazarMX
And to think this article was written in 2000: "Clinton Forecasts Debt-Free
Nation"
[http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94572](http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94572)

And in 2012: "The Untold Story Of How Clinton's Budget Destroyed The American
Economy" [http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-
bu...](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-budget-
destroyed-the-economy-2012-9)

~~~
throwaway7656
first article was written in 2000. it talks about projections (!) of 2001
budget.

~~~
ASalazarMX
Thanks, messed the years. Corrected.

------
ahtu123
I have a feeling 10 years from now Trump will be funny blip on the radar of
how crazy the '10s were while Asia will be quite meaningfully transformed. I
wish this was getting as much attention as BREAKING NEWS: Trump/staffer did
something dumb. The (soon plausibly) richest and most populous country in the
world will soon have a dictator. That's a bit scary.

~~~
api
It's part of the same larger pattern. The entire world seems to be moving
toward totalitarianism to varying degrees. I have yet to encounter a really
good explanation of why this trend is occurring across so many nations and
cultures.

~~~
pishpash
The explanation is the rise of populism following a bad economic episode. What
you are seeing now has been seen in the 20's and 30's. If some good social
policies had been implemented and the gains well distributed in the prior
decades of growth this wouldn't be happening. But humans won't learn until
forced to.

~~~
api
That's surely valid to some extent but I don't think it goes back far enough.
I've seen this trend firmly in place since 9/11 or shortly thereafter and
across virtually every segment of society.

------
purplezooey
Strange as it is, centrally planned economies are kicking the West's arse
right now. We're busy electing far right faux populists (like Italy yesterday)
and giving money to the rich.

~~~
adventured
Not even remotely close. Let's examine the countries in question anyway.

Liberal economies: US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Germany, France,
Spain, Japan, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Portugal,
Switzerland, Israel, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Iceland,
Taiwan, Austria

Planned or otherwise heavily state controlled: China, North Korea, Cuba,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Algeria, Sudan, Angola,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Egypt, Burma, Cambodia, Pakistan,
Belarus, Uzbekistan, Laos, Sierra Leone, Liberia

Who doesn't love self-explanatory lists?

And speaking of giving money to the rich. China has the highest real
inequality of any nation that has ever existed in world history. They have
half a billion people living on less than $10 per day, and a quarter of a
billion people living on less than $3 per day, while they have over 600
billionaires, including _100 billionaires_ in their parliament:

[https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/02/chinas-parliament-has-
about-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/02/chinas-parliament-has-
about-100-billionaires-according-to-data-from-the-hurun-report.html)

------
moreorless
The Economist has a very biased reporting slant on anything China related. I
try to take everything from them with a grain of salt.

~~~
akvadrako
The economist is completely and openly biased with all their reporting; that's
why their pieces are both valuable and only part of the picture. To just
scratch the surface:

 _> Our public agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We have supported
free trade ever since our foundation in 1843 when we opposed Britain’s corn
laws, which sought to keep the price of grain high by limiting imports. We
have continued to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms,
such as same-sex marriage and legalisation of drugs, regardless of whether
they are politically popular, in the belief that the force of argument will
eventually prevail._

[https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist#editorial-
phil...](https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist#editorial-philosophy)

------
pmarreck
I had no idea North Korea was a model government for China

~~~
mannykannot
It has been my suspicion that Singapore has been a model for China over the
last three or four decades, perhaps since the end of the Viet Nam war.

------
bigmanwalter
I would rather more terms with Jinping than Trump.

~~~
andrepd
There's not even a term of comparison between the two. If nothing else, Trump
is an evil and stupid, Jinping is evil and smart.

~~~
kolbe
And the US presidency isn't nearly as powerful as what will certainly become a
Chinese autocracy.

------
debt
I thought it was kind of odd when Trump joked that maybe the US should
experiment with getting rid of term limits.

The joke he made was clearly to enrage us leftists, but it also reeked of a
man who doesn't fully grasp this new situation, which is actually scary.

It was odd because China is an extremely advanced country and Xi Xinping made
an extremely undemocratic, dictatorial move by abolishing term limits.

So now we have the makings of a dictator leading the largest country on Earth,
commanding an extremely technologically-advanced military.

The cynic in me makes me think I don't understand Trump's joke because maybe
he knows something I don't. The paranoid in me wonders, if Trump really is so
misinformed.

~~~
squeegee5
Outside of the west, democracy is generally held in contempt. This can be
dated at least as far back as Plato. Trump isn't misinformed, he believes that
democracy is contemptible. And whether he is wrong is arguable.

~~~
FridgeSeal
If democracy is"contemptible" by the kinds of people that run oppressive,
autocratic (soon dictatorial) Orwellian surveillance states that disappear
people at the drop of a hat, I'll gladly keep my "contemptible" method of
governance please.

At least we can (and do) peacefully and easily vote out our leaders for
someone we'd rather have.

~~~
squeegee5
Let's dissect this misplaced moral superiority by comparison.

Trump's USA imprisons more people per capita than any other nation. And a
disproportionately large number of those people are black men. For five
decades, it has increasingly walked back checks and balances on the executive
branch. NSA, on behalf of USG, has demonstrated the most complete surveillance
of telecommunications on the planet. The Homan Square facility was used by CPD
to disappear six thousand people. This is on a tiny scale compared to the work
of the Chinese state apparatus, and it was eventually shut down. But it
persisted for a decade.

The USA isn't better than China by very much. Arguably, it is worse. In any
case, it is a far bigger hypocrite.

