3 ms·

Absolute dictators always get things done that might be impossible in any kind of democracy or republic. However they only remain dictators for the life as long

Absolute dictators always get things done that might be impossible in any kind of democracy or republic. However they only remain dictators for the life as long as things keep working, and often it requires brutal suppression of people in general. One wrong move and an economy that crumbles leaving people angry, confused and poor, and dictator is gone. When you put all your country's eggs in one person's basket, someday it will fail, or possibly the next dictator for life is a moron. Haiti is a great example of this with Papa Doc having had absolute power, and Baby Doc being an absolute moron.

baybal2 7y ago
You are quite right, China is certainly not an exception here. What many in the West don't know is that prior to Xi, the political leadership had little engagement in operating the country during Jiang and Hu. For most Jiang and Hu eras, senior civil administrators were picked on processional basis, with some not even being party members as such. With Xi, things went upside down on this front. Living in China allowed me to see just how many nation's official are not in line with Xi. Many can barely hold from doing a "facepalm manoeuvre" when listening to Xi's many gaffes. It's not a surprise that Xi has initiated a massive campaign to clear out government cadres appointed through civic line of work, and appoint party members instead. Xi will not succeed, the party simply doesn't have enough professionals to staff the civil government. This may sound like a big stretch with CCP having 80M+ members, but only around 5M members make the real political body of the party, with prime majority of them being either "lazy golden boys" or pension age people.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  Hu maybe, but Jiang? I remember him being a lot more hands on than Hu, but it was also a different more centralized era on the boundary. Jiang was also way more educated than Xi, the former being a product of rushed post cultural revolution education (Xi is less educated than Hu, being the first Chinese President in a while who can’t speak English).
  - baybal2 7y ago
    I meant it in the sense that they kept the mess of party's internal politics away from state institutes. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18527344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18527344 > With all Jiang Zemin's flaws, his best move was to "politically castrate" the party, and distance intra-party affairs from state governance. This is what made the two decades of progress possible: civil servants without little red books instead of brains. In early nineties, CPC was a buzzing hornet's nest. It was the wisest decision to not to touch it, and let the party "simmer in its own juice," while creating parallel state institutes with complete outsiders. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17337985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17337985 > It was in Jiang's times when things turned "position in the party !== automatic position in the government." Jiang was waaay to afraid of party members. He saw the party as a dual structure: > 1. An assembly of oafs, and loosers > 2. Along with a hornet's nest of Maoists, Hua-ists, Deng-ists, and 20 other "ists," all of whom were a threat to his rule.

baybal2 7y ago

You are quite right, China is certainly not an exception here. What many in the West don't know is that prior to Xi, the political leadership had little engagement in operating the country during Jiang and Hu. For most Jiang and Hu eras, senior civil administrators were picked on processional basis, with some not even being party members as such. With Xi, things went upside down on this front. Living in China allowed me to see just how many nation's official are not in line with Xi. Many can barely hold from doing a "facepalm manoeuvre" when listening to Xi's many gaffes. It's not a surprise that Xi has initiated a massive campaign to clear out government cadres appointed through civic line of work, and appoint party members instead. Xi will not succeed, the party simply doesn't have enough professionals to staff the civil government. This may sound like a big stretch with CCP having 80M+ members, but only around 5M members make the real political body of the party, with prime majority of them being either "lazy golden boys" or pension age people.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
Hu maybe, but Jiang? I remember him being a lot more hands on than Hu, but it was also a different more centralized era on the boundary. Jiang was also way more educated than Xi, the former being a product of rushed post cultural revolution education (Xi is less educated than Hu, being the first Chinese President in a while who can’t speak English).
- baybal2 7y ago
  I meant it in the sense that they kept the mess of party's internal politics away from state institutes. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18527344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18527344 > With all Jiang Zemin's flaws, his best move was to "politically castrate" the party, and distance intra-party affairs from state governance. This is what made the two decades of progress possible: civil servants without little red books instead of brains. In early nineties, CPC was a buzzing hornet's nest. It was the wisest decision to not to touch it, and let the party "simmer in its own juice," while creating parallel state institutes with complete outsiders. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17337985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17337985 > It was in Jiang's times when things turned "position in the party !== automatic position in the government." Jiang was waaay to afraid of party members. He saw the party as a dual structure: > 1. An assembly of oafs, and loosers > 2. Along with a hornet's nest of Maoists, Hua-ists, Deng-ists, and 20 other "ists," all of whom were a threat to his rule.