China will scrap limit on presidential term, meaning Xi Jinping can stay on

[Warning]

Absolutely not, they are anti-democratic.
You can't tell the people who they can or cannot vote on for some arbitrary reason.
Passive suffrage is a right that shouldn't be touched.

I disagree, term limits are not anti-democratic when they are introduced by democratic means. Similarly, excluding radical anti-democratic parties is not in my view anti-democratic itself. Time has shown that democracies are not invulnerable to being undermined if there are no safeguards such as these in place.

[turboether]

Term limits are a band-aid on corrupt systems at best, and phobia of total democratic collapse at worst. Neither are wholly unjustified, for sake of argument, and an additional check and balance doesn't do all that much harm. To think they protect against an unjust corrupt government or curtail things from going too bad is a little short-sighted. You never know if who you vote in next will be even worse. It won't stop a cascade of perpetually bad candidates the majority of the country hates, but then nothing civilised will, and if it gets to that point you have a bigger problem than just democratic collapse on your hands.

In a just, functioning democracy with a just, functioning population and all that entails they are largely irrelevant, but I guess that in itself is a bit naive as well.

The fact that China even had term limits is a bit comical. I have doubts the party line wouldn't be towed regardless of the face on it. It seems they have just found a face that appeals for longer than otherwise average, I guess.

[Judgedredd]

Term limits are a band-aid on corrupt systems at best, and phobia of total democratic collapse at worst. Neither are wholly unjustified, for sake of argument, and an additional check and balance doesn't do all that much harm. To think they protect against an unjust corrupt government or curtail things from going too bad is a little short-sighted. You never know if who you vote in next will be even worse. It won't stop a cascade of perpetually bad candidates the majority of the country hates, but then nothing civilised will, and if it gets to that point you have a bigger problem than just democratic collapse on your hands.

In a just, functioning democracy with a just, functioning population and all that entails they are largely irrelevant, but I guess that in itself is a bit naive as well.

The fact that China even had term limits is a bit comical. I have doubts the party line wouldn't be towed regardless of the face on it. It seems they have just found a face that appeals for longer than otherwise average, I guess.

The term limits were instituted by Deng (Xiaoping) to prevent another Mao. Of course that was 40 years ago though.

- - - Updated - - -

It is kind of different when you have them, but the rules are changed to accomodate one person.

Republican Rome had term limits (effectively), and Marius breaking them is one of the things that ultimately led to the fall of the Republic.

Want to back up that assertion with any evidence from the Classical Historians? Here's a hint: go and look up Tiberius Gracchus before you spout that 'Republic= good, Empire = evil' trope that features in movies like Star Wars.

In short, the Republic stopped representing the interest of the public at large and the senators grabbed all the land leaving nothing for the average joe (there is even a primary account of Tiberius Gracchus encountering these unfortunate souls while marching on campaign). Hence the likes of Marius all the way to Augustus making themselves military strongmen by taking up the cause of the masses.

Sounds kinda familiar.

[Deldavala]

The thread got locked @Creamy Flames

I have never said I support CCP or this topic, I have just said the reasons for why they are considiring removing the term limit. Then you asked why I said he done a good job. And if you compare him to other leaders of developing countries he is doing a fantastic one.

If you want to know I have been studying both in Norway, China and Germany about this subject.

Regarding transperancy. If you have done any business in China you would know its much easier to conduct that nowdays than just 10 years ago. The companies you work with aswell as the goverment gives you more insurance and more insight than ever before.

Regarding the US, they are turning more inwards. Focusing on USA first, bringing jobs home and retracting abit from the global stage(not saying thats bad though).

Regarding innovation. They are doing great progress in medicine. Namely Cancer, CRISPR and more
For tech you have companies like Huawei, Tencent, Dajiang, Alibaba being among to the top(or the leader) in their respective fields.

You have the Dockless shared bicycle, Floating solar farms, High speed rail tech. All being among the best in the field.

If you know of for instance WeChat and how innovative and forward thinking that APP is compared to anything on the western market, you might change your mind on Chinese innovation.

[Judgedredd]

I feel like you are not understanding how China works. During Deng's chairmanship, one of the things he did was decentralize power from the party to local officials and so on, then reformed the party so as to elect the succesor of his succesor (although an unofficial rule). This is how power in China has been transfered and what has allowed China to attain certain stability and focus on the country rather than on individuals after Mao. Xi is breaking with this tradition and attaining impressive ammounts of power recentely, as demonstrated during the Party Congress and now. He is becoming an authoritarian, which begs the question why is the party so afraid that they give almot Mao-like powers to Xi.

Edit: Although , I don't understand why he is doing this, since the position of president doesn't matter anyway, maybe for vanity???

And you are not understanding how China's history comes into play. In the long run the current regime is just another Chinese dynasty. Many past dynasties started by first establishing power (by overthrowing the old regime), then decentralising for a while to get things in order, then recentralising (often at the expense of local governors) later to embark on a period of expansion. It is a pattern seen in ancient dynasties like the Han dynasty and even up to the Qing dynasty.

Also, the 'electing' of the next leader is just a rubber stamp process to play to the crowd. There is no way China's leaders would have ever appointed a successor who wouldn't order their immediate arrest and permanent incarceration the instant they gained absolute power. It all comes back to the patron-client relationship at the end of the day. Funny how China using a system like this and they seem to be able to run their country far better than the likes of India (a shambolic mess, quite frankly) or Uncle Sam with its current incumbent president.

Maybe dictatorship is a better form of government. At least don't have to worry about wackos shooting people up cause their girlfriend broke up with them.

[Vargur]

Trump looks at China with envy.

Worry* because then Obama would certainly win again and again. He's young. Trump isn't. He might as well die of natural causes DURING this term.

[Judgedredd]

Worry* because then Obama would certainly win again and again. He's young. Trump isn't. He might as well die of natural causes DURING this term.

And because of the two term limit, he gets replaced with a pitiful clown. See what happens when you have too many checks and balances? So does this mean Obama can never run for President ever again or does he have to wait through a 'grace period' of some sort? I'm sure many on this forum would love to have Barry stay on another term or two, or three for that matter.

Ironic this mechanism is designed to prevent tyranny and then the hoi polloi go and put one in through willing consent.

[NED funded]

Also, the 'electing' of the next leader is just a rubber stamp process to play to the crowd. There is no way China's leaders would have ever appointed a successor who wouldn't order their immediate arrest and permanent incarceration the instant they gained absolute power. It all comes back to the patron-client relationship at the end of the day. Funny how China using a system like this and they seem to be able to run their country far better than the likes of India (a shambolic mess, quite frankly) or Uncle Sam with its current incumbent president.

Electing the succesor of your succesor is deffinetely not a rubber stamp process, it's a norm in the CCP. Xi himself was Jiang's chosen one. Why is the CCP allowing Xi to break party rule, why are they so afraid of? This is not normal, things do not happen for some mystical reason that they happened before.

Maybe dictatorship is a better form of government. At least don't have to worry about wackos shooting people up cause their girlfriend broke up with them.

I'd rather live in a country with the occasional whacko shooting up people than one where its government quashes every bit of dissent. This part of your post reeks of materialistic thinking, where as long as I have more money no problem!!!

[Mormolyce]

Want to back up that assertion with any evidence from the Classical Historians? Here's a hint: go and look up Tiberius Gracchus before you spout that 'Republic= good, Empire = evil' trope that features in movies like Star Wars.

In short, the Republic stopped representing the interest of the public at large and the senators grabbed all the land leaving nothing for the average joe (there is even a primary account of Tiberius Gracchus encountering these unfortunate souls while marching on campaign). Hence the likes of Marius all the way to Augustus making themselves military strongmen by taking up the cause of the masses.

Sounds kinda familiar.

I'm entirely familiar with the Gracchi brothers in fact.

I think you're projecting a lot onto what I was saying. If you go back and read it, I said that Marius seeking seven terms was ONE of the things that ULTIMATELY led to the fall of the Republic. There's a complex path from the late Republic to the start of the Empire.

But on that note, I think you're oversimplifying things here. The Republic didn't "stop" representing the interests of the public at large. It never had - from its inception it was controlled by the Patricians, and it was only after decades of bloody internal strife that the Plebs started gaining power and setting up institutions like the Tribunate. A lot of the ensuing history of the middle Republic was a power struggle between wealthy, powerful Plebs and the Patricians who controlled the Senate. The Gracchi brothers was one such incident.

But it's anachronistic to think of either the Patricians and Plebs in post-20th Century terms as the "people". Really it was more like the aristocracy versus the wealthy merchant class by the end of the Republic. The poor never had any power - if you were a member of the capite censi, you were pretty much fucked for the whole history of the Republic.

[Nellise]

And because of the two term limit, he gets replaced with a pitiful clown. See what happens when you have too many checks and balances? So does this mean Obama can never run for President ever again or does he have to wait through a 'grace period' of some sort? I'm sure many on this forum would love to have Barry stay on another term or two, or three for that matter.

He can't run again because of the 22nd Amendment. The rule in the US is mostly because of Washington's precedent. If he hadn't limited himself to 2 terms there wouldn't have been such a backlash when the Roosevelts ran more than twice.

[Judgedredd]

He can't run again because of the 22nd Amendment. The rule in the US is mostly because of Washington's precedent. If he hadn't limited himself to 2 terms there wouldn't have been such a backlash when the Roosevelts ran more than twice.

Then I'm going to quote Beatty from Hunger Games who says that as laws are written by men, they can be unwritten by men. After all there was the Prohibition Amendment, and the amendment which repealed it not too long after. The Bill of Rights may be sacrosanct, but not the Amendments. Also, when Roosevelt was in office there was a war going on, not the best time to have a leadership change, especially when that person is doing a fine job. Those Republicans really are such sore losers.

- - - Updated - - -

Electing the succesor of your succesor is deffinetely not a rubber stamp process, it's a norm in the CCP. Xi himself was Jiang's chosen one. Why is the CCP allowing Xi to break party rule, why are they so afraid of? This is not normal, things do not happen for some mystical reason that they happened before.



I'd rather live in a country with the occasional whacko shooting up people than one where its government quashes every bit of dissent. This part of your post reeks of materialistic thinking, where as long as I have more money no problem!!!

At least you'll be unfree and alive rather than free and dead. An extreme example perhaps, but the freedom to hypothetically behave with such savagery should be curtailed if not restricted.

[NED funded]

Then I'm going to quote Beatty from Hunger Games who says that as laws are written by men, they can be unwritten by men. After all there was the Prohibition Amendment, and the amendment which repealed it not too long after. The Bill of Rights may be sacrosanct, but not the Amendments. Also, when Roosevelt was in office there was a war going on, not the best time to have a leadership change, especially when that person is doing a fine job. Those Republicans really are such sore losers.

- - - Updated - - -



At least you'll be unfree and alive rather than free and dead. An extreme example perhaps, but the freedom to hypothetically behave with such savagery should be curtailed if not restricted.

I'd agree with you if the US was in the same situation as in third world countries. But the circumstances in the US are set so I'm more likely to die from a car accident than a mass shooting, Given that is the case, I'll take chances and live in the country where I can have the freedom to protest, to write, paint and express myself like I want and most importantly not be thrown to indoctrination camps because I dared to not follow the party line or because I'm part of the wrong ethnic group. Even if that means the occassional mass shooting.

[Sorshen]

Xi, The God Emperor of Mankind !

[Tico]

I say this is not the right way they are on.

[Judgedredd]

I say this is not the right way they are on.

Economic growth says hello.

[Kronik85]

Being the President of China is largely ceremonial, the position of power is General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China which since the 90's has gone hand in hand with also being the Chairman of the Central Military Commission (basically the guy in charge of the army). There is no term limit on these positions from what I understand of it.

Guess what Xi Jinping has been since 2012 aside from being the President!? So this doesn't really mean anything besides that maybe he really enjoys being the head of state and going on nice trips abroad. He could of stepped down from being President and still held complete control of the country so nothing has changed power structure wise. If anything I suppose this just confirms that his power over the party to the rest of the world, for those keeping an eye on Chinese politics they have known this to be the case for a long time now.

[Gref]

He will be followed by Erdogan very soon. Fucking disgrace.

[Malacrass]

I knew people would be quick to compare this to some western countries also having no term limits.

The difference is, if it's not obvious already, the fact that China is a communist country. It's not a liberal democracy.

Germany was mentioned in the same breath with China a few posts ago. But we can get rid of Merkel whenever we want, even outside of elections if the public pressure is high enough. Do you believe the people of China have the means to overthrow Xi Jinping in a similar fashion?
I guess people could try, but don't be surprised when the government starts harvesting their organs.

[Judgedredd]

I knew people would be quick to compare this to some western countries also having no term limits.

The difference is, if it's not obvious already, the fact that China is a communist country. It's not a liberal democracy.

Germany was mentioned in the same breath with China a few posts ago. But we can get rid of Merkel whenever we want, even outside of elections if the public pressure is high enough. Do you believe the people of China have the means to overthrow Xi Jinping in a similar fashion?
I guess people could try, but don't be surprised when the government starts harvesting their organs.

But we can get rid of Merkel whenever we want, even outside of elections if the public apathy is high enough.

Fixed.

[Omega10]

And you are not understanding how China's history comes into play. In the long run the current regime is just another Chinese dynasty. Many past dynasties started by first establishing power (by overthrowing the old regime), then decentralising for a while to get things in order, then recentralising (often at the expense of local governors) later to embark on a period of expansion. It is a pattern seen in ancient dynasties like the Han dynasty and even up to the Qing dynasty.

Also, the 'electing' of the next leader is just a rubber stamp process to play to the crowd. There is no way China's leaders would have ever appointed a successor who wouldn't order their immediate arrest and permanent incarceration the instant they gained absolute power. It all comes back to the patron-client relationship at the end of the day. Funny how China using a system like this and they seem to be able to run their country far better than the likes of India (a shambolic mess, quite frankly) or Uncle Sam with its current incumbent president.
Maybe dictatorship is a better form of government. At least don't have to worry about wackos shooting people up cause their girlfriend broke up with them.

Right now China is a country on the rise. I agree with your assessment of India. The new leader of India has taken a country with a lot of potential and seemed to make sure that this potential is stamped out. Chinese growth remains high, and their economy seems to be actually rising all boats - maybe not ALL boats but one heck of a lot of them. And problems they have run into like pollution are getting slowly fixed as well. India currently has substantially worse pollution problems than China does atm.

Considering where they were a decade ago, and where they are now, I can see why they are wanting to keep their leader.