5 ms·

This is not how China works. Previous leaders only exited power because they were pretty much ousted, and their power was never really institutionally checked.

This is not how China works. Previous leaders only exited power because they were pretty much ousted, and their power was never really institutionally checked. Mainland China never been ever close to constitutional rule. It's unbelievably naive to think that term limits would've ever been something other than a decoration, and a propaganda point with communists.

silisili 5y ago
That's worked remarkably well for Russia.
addicted 5y ago
From Wikipedia > The Communist Party of China proposed amending the Constitution, for the first time after 2004,[3] including writing Scientific Outlook on Development and Xi Jinping Thought into the Preamble,[4] and removing the provision that the President and Vice President "shall serve no more than two consecutive terms" from the Constitution.[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_National_People%27s_Congress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_National_People%27s_Con...
suifbwish 5y ago
There were emperors in China and many other countries all through the past several thousand years and it is the expectation of the world that they suddenly give up that entire way of life and thinking in one century?
- causi 5y ago
  Why should other countries be capable of it and the Chinese incapable?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Archio 5y ago
  Yeah bro, there were kings and feudal lords and chieftains and emperors (like Rome) all over the rest of the world for thousands of years too. To say that the Chinese are incapable of democracy because being ruled by an autocrat steadily increasing his own power is their "way of life" is frankly insulting to the Chinese.
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    The Chinese are one of the most crowded nations for a long long time, and their dynamics, views, priorities and choices are different. Also they have a much different history on social dynamics and outcomes. Judging their systems and dynamics from our point of view misses the point in some cases. There's an eye opening video about "The Social Credit System" from CCC (Chaos Communication Conference). Take a look if you have time: https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9904-the_social_credit_system https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9904-the_social_credit_system It's an hour long talk.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  The Taiwanese seem to have managed the transition.
  - thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
    Taiwan is not a shining beacon of democracy either. Since the creation of the country in 1949, the total number of parties holding power is: two. For important issues like the geopolitical orientation and the business model of the country - the choice between KMT and DPP is like a choice between Pepsi and Coca-cola
    - Shaanie 5y ago
      Which is fairly common among democracies. How many parties has held power in the US since 1940?
      - freemint 5y ago
        Are you suggesting the USA is still a democracy rather than a republic or an oligarchy where only the political position of the rich matter?
- xinniethepooh 5y ago
  There were slaves for thousands of years too, and we ended that pretty quickly.
lambdasquirrel 5y ago
That's just plainly not true. Deng Xiaopeng set the country up for orderly succession, and it did work up through Xi Jinping. Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin both cycled through office without any of the things we associate with authoritarian rulers. There was no execution of your political opponents, after you beat them to office, or afterwards. The argument has been that China needed a reset badly. Free-for-all capitalism hasn't been so great for most folks in the U.S. either, has it? That has been the justification for the heavy hand of the government during Xi's rule. There's also the argument that Western-style term limits prevent long-term strategic planning. All of those are really tempting and solid arguments, especially given how corrupt China had become with capitalism-ruling-all, but one really does wonder. As far as Alibaba goes, it's to my understanding that there are no real alternatives to Alibaba Cloud in China (unless you want to go for a foreign solution like AWS or Azure). It would seem that the current government thinks they can get away with making an example of the company as they see fit. There may be some geopolitical logic to that, because Xi's government seeks to make China more independent after Trump's trade wars, and if you have a big, wealthy internet company drawing in the country's top talent, then that's fewer that's e.g. going towards the semiconductor companies they now seek to bolster. Now there may have been a "correct" policy solution to this, a la antitrust, but it seems Xi's government prefers to be heavy-handed. For me, that's setting some scary precedents, because as other commenters have said, it isn't clear how succession will be handled going forward, and it may well be brutal.
- rlt 5y ago
  > Deng Xiaopeng set the country up for orderly succession, and it did work up through Xi Jinping. Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin both cycled through office without any of the things we associate with authoritarian rulers. There was no execution of your political opponents, after you beat them to office, or afterwards. Two orderly successions with no political executions isn’t a particularly high bar…
  - roenxi 5y ago
    For somewhere like China, under authoritarian rule, that is a pretty high bar. The stakes are very high and there are a lot of talented, ambitious individuals. There is no theoretical framework for why one person shouldn't put their family in charge once you accept the idea that one party should be in charge. Deng, Jiang & Hu are all basically heros of the modern era for resisting any temptation.

silisili 5y ago

That's worked remarkably well for Russia.

addicted 5y ago

From Wikipedia > The Communist Party of China proposed amending the Constitution, for the first time after 2004,[3] including writing Scientific Outlook on Development and Xi Jinping Thought into the Preamble,[4] and removing the provision that the President and Vice President "shall serve no more than two consecutive terms" from the Constitution.[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_National_People%27s_Congress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_National_People%27s_Con...

suifbwish 5y ago

There were emperors in China and many other countries all through the past several thousand years and it is the expectation of the world that they suddenly give up that entire way of life and thinking in one century?

causi 5y ago
Why should other countries be capable of it and the Chinese incapable?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Archio 5y ago
Yeah bro, there were kings and feudal lords and chieftains and emperors (like Rome) all over the rest of the world for thousands of years too. To say that the Chinese are incapable of democracy because being ruled by an autocrat steadily increasing his own power is their "way of life" is frankly insulting to the Chinese.
- bayindirh 5y ago
  The Chinese are one of the most crowded nations for a long long time, and their dynamics, views, priorities and choices are different. Also they have a much different history on social dynamics and outcomes. Judging their systems and dynamics from our point of view misses the point in some cases. There's an eye opening video about "The Social Credit System" from CCC (Chaos Communication Conference). Take a look if you have time: https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9904-the_social_credit_system https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9904-the_social_credit_system It's an hour long talk.
stickfigure 5y ago
The Taiwanese seem to have managed the transition.
- thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
  Taiwan is not a shining beacon of democracy either. Since the creation of the country in 1949, the total number of parties holding power is: two. For important issues like the geopolitical orientation and the business model of the country - the choice between KMT and DPP is like a choice between Pepsi and Coca-cola
  - Shaanie 5y ago
    Which is fairly common among democracies. How many parties has held power in the US since 1940?
    - freemint 5y ago
      Are you suggesting the USA is still a democracy rather than a republic or an oligarchy where only the political position of the rich matter?
xinniethepooh 5y ago
There were slaves for thousands of years too, and we ended that pretty quickly.

lambdasquirrel 5y ago

That's just plainly not true. Deng Xiaopeng set the country up for orderly succession, and it did work up through Xi Jinping. Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin both cycled through office without any of the things we associate with authoritarian rulers. There was no execution of your political opponents, after you beat them to office, or afterwards. The argument has been that China needed a reset badly. Free-for-all capitalism hasn't been so great for most folks in the U.S. either, has it? That has been the justification for the heavy hand of the government during Xi's rule. There's also the argument that Western-style term limits prevent long-term strategic planning. All of those are really tempting and solid arguments, especially given how corrupt China had become with capitalism-ruling-all, but one really does wonder. As far as Alibaba goes, it's to my understanding that there are no real alternatives to Alibaba Cloud in China (unless you want to go for a foreign solution like AWS or Azure). It would seem that the current government thinks they can get away with making an example of the company as they see fit. There may be some geopolitical logic to that, because Xi's government seeks to make China more independent after Trump's trade wars, and if you have a big, wealthy internet company drawing in the country's top talent, then that's fewer that's e.g. going towards the semiconductor companies they now seek to bolster. Now there may have been a "correct" policy solution to this, a la antitrust, but it seems Xi's government prefers to be heavy-handed. For me, that's setting some scary precedents, because as other commenters have said, it isn't clear how succession will be handled going forward, and it may well be brutal.

rlt 5y ago
> Deng Xiaopeng set the country up for orderly succession, and it did work up through Xi Jinping. Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin both cycled through office without any of the things we associate with authoritarian rulers. There was no execution of your political opponents, after you beat them to office, or afterwards. Two orderly successions with no political executions isn’t a particularly high bar…
- roenxi 5y ago
  For somewhere like China, under authoritarian rule, that is a pretty high bar. The stakes are very high and there are a lot of talented, ambitious individuals. There is no theoretical framework for why one person shouldn't put their family in charge once you accept the idea that one party should be in charge. Deng, Jiang & Hu are all basically heros of the modern era for resisting any temptation.