Why is "president for life" in China such a big deal?

Question

"Great Leap Backward" was the title announcing the term limit removal in China. This BBC article tells us more about this:

The constitution has been altered to allow Xi Jinping to remain as president beyond two terms and they would not have gone to this much trouble if that was not exactly what he intended to do.

I am wondering why it is this so important.

Putin is de facto leader for more than 3 mandates (not much big difference from "for life") and I do not remember to be illustrated so harshly:

Commentators, analysts and some politicians[7][8][9][10] concurred in 2008 and early 2009 that the transfer of presidential powers that took place on May 7, 2008, was in name only and Putin continued to retain the number one position in Russia's effective power hierarchy, with Dmitry Medvedev being a figurehead or "Russia’s notional president".

Also, China seems to be less active than Russia regarding external conflicts nowadays.

Question: Why is "president for life" in China such a big deal?

Not enough for a full answer, but perhaps it's because China actively changed their constitution to keep Xi Jinping in power, whereas Russian laws already allowed somebody to continually be re-elected if they skip every third term. — Giter, Mar 12 '18 at 20:36
If your defense against a policy is "Putin does it too", that's not going to be viewed as a great defense in most of the Western world. — Michael Seifert, Mar 12 '18 at 20:49
It is only an issue in countries like China, USA and Russia where the president has extensive powers. I don't know of any parliamentary systems that have anything like term limits. — Keith McClary, Mar 13 '18 at 04:47
The fact that outing criticism on Xi Jinping can now end in jail time with the "president" for life makes him more a dictator then a president — J_rite, Mar 13 '18 at 11:54
One could ask the even more interesting question 'Why does the West care so much?' — George Daramouskas, Mar 13 '18 at 13:46
This is important because of the legacy of Mao and the cultural revolution. It seems like many Chinese remember that period as a nightmare due to all the executions, collateral damage, and imprisonments. I believe the implication might be that if Mao didn't have so much power, then the cultural revolution wouldn't have been so dark and brutal. — Mark Rogers, Mar 13 '18 at 14:59
This is interesting because, while the political party doesn’t change, there are no limits on how long a Prime Minister can serve in the UK. Of course the ~5 yearly elections stop this being an issue, and I expect our resident “dictator-for-life” the Queen would step in to prevent damage. — Tim, Mar 13 '18 at 17:19
if someone doesn't know why is being president for life is such a big deal, then he probably doesn't know why dictatorship is a big deal and he probably doesn't know what freedom is too. I'm from lebanon, people here keep electing the same people, I feel pity for you and them. — Lynob, Mar 13 '18 at 21:13
If the president is within a few years of his term limit then there is no incentive to for him to put his political opponents in jail. President "for life" gives the current president a motive to put his political opponents in jail. — Russell Hankins, Mar 16 '18 at 05:34

Denis de Bernardy · Accepted Answer · 2018-03-13T11:08:59.753

112

Putin is de facto leader for more than 3 mandates (not much big difference from "for life") and I do not remember to be illustrated so harshly

Consider revisiting your news sources somewhat. There was an international outcry at the time (in the West anyway), because he had the constitution changed to stay in power.

Plus, whataboutism is a logical fallacy.

Why "president for life" in China is such a big deal?

Because as undemocratic as the regime may have been in recent decades, it has had a somewhat inexplicable knack for having one or two term dictators rather than a series of dictators for life like North Korea. Some (many?) fear that this change might be a return to the Mao days. Which might be sort of fine to outsiders if you're a backward developing country, but not so inviting to outsiders when you're the second largest economy in the world and the main US trading partner.

edited Mar 13 '18 at 11:08

answered Mar 12 '18 at 20:51

Denis de Bernardy

30,642
7
91
118

15

Putin didn’t change constitution to stay in power. The Russian constitution always limited only consecutive terms, not total amount of terms. – Spc_555 Mar 12 '18 at 22:50
2

@EricTowers not the best analogy, as Puyi was a powerless puppet. – xdavidliu Mar 13 '18 at 08:24
30

@VasilyAlexeev Putin/Medvedev changed the constitution to allow Putin to return and keep power for twelve years instead of only eight, however. From the very moment Medvedev proposed this people were saying that this was intended for Putin, and they were right. I think the original answer was correct, there was no need to change it. – C. E. Mar 13 '18 at 08:28
2

Still don't understand why it is more positive to have consecutive dictators instead of lifetime dictators? It's the same crappy situation. – Thorsten S. Mar 13 '18 at 12:12
9

@ThorstenS. I speculate that many would argue that consecutive dictators at least allow for the possibility of change. And it allows those who disagree with a leader's policies to (in theory) "wait it out" for the leader's term to end. Of course, if the leader has groomed a successor, it's still a futile effort -- but hope, however fleeting, is a powerful drug. – tonysdg Mar 13 '18 at 13:20
8

@ThorstenS. Every time a country's leader changes, it's a chance at a real shift in their politics. Often, that doesn't materialise, but in general, a country is much more likely to maintain the status quo as long as the same person remains in power. If that country has less-than-friendly relations with other nations, maintaining the status quo is likely to mean not solving those issues, and issues that persist longer are more likely to turn into sources of more serious conflict. More changes means more chances to make amends - or at least, that's the general reasoning behind this reaction. – anaximander Mar 13 '18 at 13:28
But this argument can be also inverted because not only the change from bad to good is possible, but also the change from good to bad. Knowing that sooner or later an Attila the Hun will occur, lifetime dictatorships are even preferable. Somehow it all sounds like "Periodic change is good!" without specifying what exactly is good with a change. – Thorsten S. Mar 13 '18 at 13:44
@xdavidliu : We'll see. – Eric Towers Mar 13 '18 at 14:09
9

@ThorstenS. When the good changes to the bad, isn't that the exact instance when you don't want a lifetime of the status quo? Yes, you're right, change is not always good (many losing political party members will agree with this to varying extent), but term limits are a check on power. Change promotes Justice (the ideal) and allows flaws to be corrected. It promotes democracy because it forces politicians to adjust to social forces (in various ways, to various degrees). Change is not always good, but the alternative is worse. – BurnsBA Mar 13 '18 at 14:56
1

Russia has both a prime minister and a president. Putin had to leave the presidency for one term before he could run for president again. The elections in Russia are at least nominally multi party elections. None of this is true in China. – Walter Mitty Mar 13 '18 at 15:50
@BurnsBA This is all correct, but concerning your statement "isn't that the exact instance when you don't want a lifetime of the status quo" it is not a question of wanting. The dictator is not dependent on what people are wanting (ok, still need cronies and lackeys) because this is the very definition of dictatorship.The dictator does not strive for checks on power, justice or promotion of democracy. What looks good for a democracy may be irrelevant for dictatorships: Many of them forced people to vote, is voting not fine? Not if there is only one selection without repercussions. – Thorsten S. Mar 13 '18 at 16:50
1

Also worth noting that there's a fair bit of discontent over this within China so it's not just a Western reaction thing. – Semaphore Mar 14 '18 at 04:13
@Anaximander Aside from the possibility for real change to occur, leaving one person in power for that long usually allows them to consolidate more and more power to themselves. Leaders who change on a regular basis will take a while to consolidate power after a change, making them more reliant on having the support of others, especially immediately after a change. Granted, this can become a health hazard for other high-ranking leaders, as the new dictator will often decide that others perceived as being a threat to their power may need to have a tragic accident. – reirab Mar 15 '18 at 11:34
I think the main thing is that it smells an awful lot like "emperor". – Hot Licks Mar 15 '18 at 22:31
1

@ThorstenS. It's true that frequent change also allows for negative changes, but in this case, relations with China aren't excellent, so changes are more likely to be good than bad. Also, in general a country where the leader holds power for a long time tends towards a sort of inertia - the leader gains more power over time and becomes more determined to hold onto it, which makes them more likely to resort to drastic measures. Leaders who accept that their terms are limited are less likely to use corruption and/or violence to hold onto their office than those who plan on being lifelong rulers. – anaximander Mar 16 '18 at 09:28
@anaxinander Good argument. Thinking over it, a sign of a bad leader is exactly clinging to his position and making himself dic.....uh,sorry,sorry, "Great illuminating leader" for life. – Thorsten S. Mar 16 '18 at 16:59
@EricTowers are you implying that there will actually be limits of any kind to Xi's power? – xdavidliu Mar 17 '18 at 19:20
@xdavidliu : Not visibly, at first. – Eric Towers Mar 17 '18 at 20:08
@EricTowers so later on there will? Who will be the ones to challenge him? Will he give up power voluntarily or will he put up a fight? I'm curious because I haven't seen the any dispute whatsoever to the implication of Xi basically being a dictator. Please explain further what you mean, thanks. – xdavidliu Mar 17 '18 at 20:10
@xdavidliu : Xi did not get this large of a concession without incurring significant private political debt. These debts come due, even for dictators who believe they can erase such debts by various methods. Or to over-summarize: which part of "we'll see" is hard to grasp? – Eric Towers Mar 17 '18 at 20:14
@EricTowers ah that makes sense. To answer your question, the entire part of "we'll see" is quite difficult for me to grasp; I personally found it rather vague, and since I may not be as familiar with the internal politics of the CCP as you are, it's not immediately obvious what those two words mean. – xdavidliu Mar 17 '18 at 20:34

score 47 · Answer 2 · edited Mar 12 '18 at 20:52

47

There will be others wanting power in China. If the President has a 10 year maximum term then those others can hope to gain power keeping out of trouble, biding their time, building networks of support. I.e. playing the usual political games.

If the President cannot be removed by constitutional means, then the only way for him to be removed is extra-constitutional means.

This is a big deal in both Russia and in China. But in China there has been a change of the rules, and so it is currently receiving greater focus and attention. Putin achieved his status by stealth, gradually eliminating credible opposition, using interpretations of the constitution rather then changing it.

Previous Chinese leaders with this kind of power include Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. We may recall the kind of human rights record that these leaders had.

edited Mar 12 '18 at 20:52

chirlu

5,772
5
27
32

answered Mar 12 '18 at 20:44

James K

120,320
22
366
478

5

"Others wanting power": Jiang Zemin, who leads a major opposing faction within the CCP. If Xi had a finite term, Jiang could just bide his time then possibly maneuver to install a supporter of his. As it stands now, Jiang's power base will continue to (slowly) erode under the constant pressure by Xi to remove "corrupt" Jiang followers. – Nick T Mar 13 '18 at 21:56
4

just want to point out that Jiang Zemin is 91 years old. I'm not sure he's really someone you would expect to manuevering seriously at this point, especially relative to Xi, who at age 64 is basically a spring chicken compared to Jiang – xdavidliu Mar 17 '18 at 19:22

score 20 · Answer 3 · answered Mar 13 '18 at 07:12

Why "president for life" in China is such a big deal?

— Because the increasing shift towards a dictatorship state¹ may trigger a chain of uncontrolled events that, in turn, would undermine the Western investments and the international trade.

TL;DR

The logic is fairly simple:

In any country, the government is a mixture of various groups of influence;
Individuals (or small groups) tend to make mistakes, but the looming risk of losing power make the ruling faction to listen up to the opposition: to the electors if there are elections, or at least, to the opposition factions existing in the same political party; this is how, basically, the self-regulation works everywhere;
The absence of the opposition makes mistakes unnoticed; One obvious example, the nationalization of foreign assets can be very tempting, or a political/military demarche would lead to sanctions imposed;
For years, China was considered an undemocratic country, and this almost zeroed its trade with the West. However,

Throughout the 1980s, the normalization of political relations between the two countries and China’s economic reforms paved the way for acceleration in the American-Chinese transfer of goods, values, ideas, personnel, and technology. — source.

Here's how it looks like:

In 1978 the total value of China’s import and export was only 20.6 billion U.S. dollars […]
In 2010 the total value of China’s import and export reached 2.974 trillion U.S. dollars, 144 times as much as that in 1978 […]
— The State Council of the People's Republic of China

Summary

To a great extent, the growth of the Chinese international trade is a result of political and economic reforms in China.

Stepping back would impose numerous risks to the international companies who build their business around the trade with China. Therefore, they consider such a drastic constitutional change a "Great Leap Backward", straight to 1980's.

That's why it's a big deal.

¹ — it does not actually matter whether or not this constitutional change makes China a dictatorship. It only matters how the businesses perceive it.

You are mixing up China's economic reform and politics. China is not going back to its Mao-era communist economy. — , Mar 13 '18 at 10:23
There is no increasing shift to dictatorship, China is a dictatorship and was it the whole time. Economic reforms did not change its government. I think you are equating dictatorship=bad economy. but e.g. Nazi Germany's economy was in relation to its size very strong. — Thorsten S., Mar 13 '18 at 12:44

score 10 · Answer 4 · answered Mar 13 '18 at 02:20

Russia is a democracy (at least nominally). Vladimir Putin could lose a race for the presidency. Xi Jinping will not have to face this at more than the most nominal level. This is not to say that there is no way for him to leave office short of death, but if he does leave, it won't be as a result of public voting. He would leave by some form of coup.

Putin had to leave power and then ran again without incumbency. He followed the existing rules, established prior to his presidency to do so. There is some reason to think that Dimitry Medvedev was more independent than Putin would have preferred (although not everyone agrees). This is noteworthy because it is more difficult to run for an open seat than as a challenger. Of course, Putin was a special case. Xi Jinping won't have to do this, as China is changing the rules.

The outcry against Putin occurred when he left office. Because it was clear almost immediately that he intended Medvedev to be only a puppet, to continue to run Russia, and that he would resume the presidency once constitutionally allowed. By the time that Putin actually resumed the office, the outrage had mostly been exhausted. By contrast, right now is the first that anyone realized Xi Jinping's intent. Presumably the actual moment when he should have left office (under the old rules) will pass with less outcry.

score 8 · Answer 5 · answered Mar 13 '18 at 13:41

Last year, we saw a shift in attitude toward China in part due to the recognition that China is more nationalist than thought. This article from the globalist publication The Economist posits this clearly - the West got China wrong. Xi Jinping is a part of this - he's more of a nationalist than globalists thought. I write globalists because American, German, British and other nationalists actually cautioned that this was always true about the Chinese leader and its communist party - it has its own interests in mind (the AIIB bank, belt and road initiative, etc were all part of this).

The reason that Xi Jinping being a leader for life is a big deal is that it prevents Westerners from any political interference or infiltration. Take for instance the American interference in Russian elections

As soon as Bill Clinton assumed the White House in 1993, his experts discussed “formulating a policy of American tutelage”, including unabashed partisan support for President Boris Yeltsin. “Political missionaries and evangelists, usually called ‘advisers’, spread across Russia in the early and mid-1990s,” notes Cohen: many were funded by the US government. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser, talked of Russia “increasingly passing into de facto western receivership”.

How can the West do this with China if there is one leader? The one-party system already makes this harder, combine that with one leader, and Chinese nationalism (and later imperialism as their foreign bases in Africa foreshadow) is here to stay for at least the next century and maybe longer.

This is neither positive or negative about China or globalists or nationalists, though readers may perceive bias due to their own views. The reality is that nations have interests and they will play whatever set of cards to convince others they don't have those interests until it's time to disclose their real intent. This is why the Western media turned harsher on China the past two years - some are starting to recognize the rising Chinese nationalism.

Of course, it was Sun Tzu who said "the unpredictable win, the predictable lose."

The removal of the two-year presidential term limit is a minor technicality. The process for choosing the president is not changing and has been the same for the past 40 years at least. The big change, causing the uproar and hysteria in the Western media, is the fact that the Chinese Communist Party maintains political power even after 40 years of spectacularly successful capitalist economy. The West's hope was that the Chinese oligarchs created by the capitalist economy would use their wealth to grab political power just like their Western counterparts have. — ebhh2001, Mar 17 '18 at 15:20

score 7 · Answer 6 · answered Mar 12 '18 at 22:55

7

I am also surprised that it is such a hassle.

China was always called a dictatorship by the West (or more nicely "authoritarian") and China still scores low on the Democracy Index. I don't see such a difference between a dictatorship with one leader or a dictatorship with several consecutive leaders. In the end the situation in a dictatorship really depends on how human the current highest leader is and not at what rate the leadership changes.

Given the comments that Russia already allows president for lifetime and this is no defense: While the President of Germany has also a limit of two consecutive terms each five years, the German Constitution also has no limit for being Chancellor which is the most powerful position in Germany. Merkel can legally be elected again and again until she dies.

So while it is not common in the Western world, it does exist.

answered Mar 12 '18 at 22:55

Thorsten S.

4,702
19
31

34

A lack of term limits for the head of government in Germany (and the UK, and other parliamentary states) vs China or Russia is balanced by the fact that in the former, there are regular free and fair elections, credible opposition parties who are free to criticise the government, and a legislature which is more than a rubber stamp for government policies. For the latter, not so much. – Steve Melnikoff Mar 13 '18 at 00:23
2

It would be pointless to have term limits in a parliamentary system like Germany. It is the winning coalition that chooses their head of government, not the people. The people elect representatives for Parliament. – Stian Mar 13 '18 at 07:01
3

Also, chancellor (Mrs Merkel) is not the most powerful position according to the German law - it's only third after president (Mr Steinmeier - 2 term limit) and president of the parliament (Mr Schäuble - no limit). That said, chancellor is the most powerful position in the day to day running of Germany, because tradition dictates that the president will just represent the country and otherwise support whatever the parliament and the chancellor do. But the president has the last say on any laws (rarely he says no) and a whole bunch of other powers he (fortunately) hasn't had occasion to use. – Sumyrda - remember Monica Mar 13 '18 at 08:18
8

Bear in mind also that in parliamentary systems, there are more ways to remove the head of government (chancellor/prime minister) than just losing an election, including loss of support from their own party/coalition, or loss of confidence from the legislature. – Steve Melnikoff Mar 13 '18 at 09:45
This question confuses the position of "CDU leader" with the person of Merkel. There is obviously no term limit on the CDU being the biggest party in parliament, that's up to the voters. And the person leading that party will be influential because of that. – MSalters Mar 13 '18 at 09:48
2

@MSalters I don't think so. Being Chancellor is not coupled at being party leader or even party membership(!), but is obviously practically nearly always so.. Both Ludwig Erhard and Gerhard Schröder were not party leaders, Erhard the whole first term, Schröder several months after his inauguration. And nothing prevents a law which therefore limits the time for being Chancellor. – Thorsten S. Mar 13 '18 at 13:16

score 1 · Answer 7 · answered Mar 15 '18 at 19:09

1

It is not a big deal. China will still use the same process for choosing their leader as it has for the past 40 years. The only minor change is that China can now choose the same person as their leader more than twice.

We should really be asking how democratic it is to limit the number of times that the voters in the West can elect the same person. Is this limit just a way to prevent a leader from becoming too "popular" by doing something that would be good for the majority and bad for the Western elites (the wealthiest 0.01%)?

answered Mar 15 '18 at 19:09

ebhh2001

985
1
7
13

1

That comment is politically naive, and unrealistic. The communist party leader can select regional and powerful leaders as the people that will always vote for him. Power hoarding forces corruption and paying off of supporter ministers and selling off national companies and banks in between friends. That's probably what's happening behind the scenes in China, and corruption is always worse without media transparency and democratic election. That said, the education in China is very high, so it's likely it will just be like Thailand or has been. – bandybabboon Mar 17 '18 at 01:45
@aliential The Chinese Communist Party has over 90 million members. Do you really think that one person can select the leaders at the lower levels of such a vast organization? – ebhh2001 Nov 16 '20 at 04:03
If they control the news, they can influence everyone yes. The leader has direct control of the newspaper editors, so they can program the entire nation's thoughts. Prison/Killing journalists is common in totalitarian countries, but uncommon in the west. The living standard in all democratic nations is higher than in all single-ruler nations in 90% of the times, because Stalin, Nero, Hitler, Mao, Vlad the Impaler, Pol Pot, Chauchescu, All caused poverty and death and were impossible to vote out of leadership. Democracy is religious to the west for that reason. – bandybabboon Nov 16 '20 at 04:48
Chairman Mao stayed in power for 15 years after 45 million people died of famine, the biggest famine in the history of the world, that's as many deaths as both world wars. His political system also stayed strong. I don't criticize China though generally, I think that technology is the problem. Chinese are very good people. When humans have very strong technologies, they usually use them to steal and rape people, it is human nature. The technology of aeroplanes, Trains, machine guns, made European Lifelong leaders damage china and africa. – bandybabboon Nov 16 '20 at 04:56

score 0 · Answer 8 · answered Mar 14 '18 at 16:22

Recall Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was "president for life" of the United States for three terms and part of a fourth until his death: throughout the Great Depression and the Second World War. He was physically disabled and known to use a wheelchair in office, although he did not want to be defined or identified by this condition.

Presidential term limits were not imposed by the Constitution in the U.S. until after FDR's death.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is a head of state in a hostile world. To call him "president for life" is to acknowledge the fact that he faces the risk of assassination in office, among other many other factors that make this a "big deal."

He wasn't "President for Life" - although it must have seemed that way at the time. In truth he could have been voted out of office on three separate occasions, and he didn't have the military arresting his opponents or intimidating voters. So it's really not the same thing. — Shawn V. Wilson, Mar 14 '18 at 18:40

Why is "president for life" in China such a big deal?

8 Answers8

TL;DR

Summary

Linked

Related