风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
Why Xi's lifting of term limits is a good thing
By Eric X. Li April 2 at 1:14 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/04/02/xi-term-limits/?utm_term=.c0af0a4af61a
A woman selects a souvenir necklace with a portrait of Chinese President Xi Jinping at a stall in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China. Feb. 26, 2018. (Thomas Peter/Reuters)
SHANGHAI — Western media and the Chinese chattering classes have been in an uproar since China’s National People’s Congress approved constitutional changes that included lifting the two-term presidential limit. China approves “president for life,” proclaimedWestern media.
But this misinterprets the nature of the development. And the world appears to be overlooking consequential political reforms taking place in China that will impact our collective future for the better.
The presidential term limit has no bearing on how long a top Chinese leader can stay in power and lifting it by no means allows anyone to rule for life. In fact, the position of real power — the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee — has never had term limits. The most recent draft of China’s constitution, written in 1982, set the presidency as a symbolic head of state, with no actual power. Although the two offices happened to have been occupied by the same person for more than 25 years since Jiang Zemin, the institutional mechanics of the offices are rather separate.
Formally unifying these two positions at the very top will transform the entire Chinese governance structure by institutionally fusing the party and the state. This reform is good for China simply because the party has developed into the most competent national political institution in the world today.
As to the issue of lifetime rule, the party does have institutional mechanisms, both mandatory and customary, that govern officials’ retirement. In fact, the party constitution specifically states that no position has lifetime tenure. This system has been developed over decades and covers the many tiers of the party’s organizational structure, from the Politburo to ministerial and provincial positions. Within this framework, it is possible for Xi to lead the country for longer than his recent predecessors. But not for life.
Age limits have varied over time and differ based on position. The custom for most senior leaders in recent years has been to retire at the age of 68, which is often extended to complete a term. Exceptions have been made for the position of general secretary (one served, successfully, through his late 70’s). But still, it’s always finite.
However, eliminating the presidential term limit is still significant. It is part and parcel of highly consequential and, in my view, constructive political reforms. These reforms were set in motion at the 18th party congress held in 2012 and were a particular focus at the third plenum in 2013. I wrote then that the fusing of party and state would be the most far-reaching political transformation in Chinese governance. The completion of the current constitutional reform is the culmination of that process.
Since the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949, the leadership of the party has been central to China’s political DNA. However, institutionally the system has gone through significant growing pains. At first, China adopted the Soviet system that separated, at least on the institutional level, the party and government. The top organs — the party central committee, the National People’s Congress and the state council were parallel. But in reality, the party led everything. This produced significant conflicts that some have blamed as partially responsible for the disastrous Cultural Revolution.
When former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping began his reforms over 40 years ago, he pushed a policy of administrative separation between party and government. But that was due to the particular circumstances of post-Cultural Revolution China. At the time, many senior leaders who were purged by Mao Zedong were rehabilitated and returned to their previous positions.
The party was just emerging from a period of upheaval, and those officials all came from the era of the centrally planned economy. China needed market economics. Deng’s policy unleashed younger and more forward-looking governing forces to execute the reform agenda. But more importantly, he also focused great energy on rebuilding the party institution.
In the following decades, the party has developed into one of the most elaborate and effective governing institutions in the world and, I would argue, in history. It is responsible for achieving what’s known as the greatest improvement in standard of living for the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.
The party has now stepped forward to the front and center of Chinese governance. This constitutional reform further enshrines the party’s political centrality by extending the wording of party leadership from the preamble to the body of the constitution. At the governing level, the reform creates a super agency, the National Supervisory Commission, to combat corruption. It is an extension of the party’s Central Disciplinary and Inspection Commission and will further institutionalize the tremendous anti-corruption drive executed by the party commission over the past five years.
It is in this context that the removal of a presidential term limit is so significant. While the party’s leadership has always been politically paramount, the administrative separation of party and government has produced institutional contradictions and confusion. As China increasingly becomes a major power in the world, the office of the president has assumed greater importance, especially in China’s interactions with the rest of the world.
Bringing the presidency’s institutional mechanics in line with the office of party general secretary, and for them to be occupied by the same person, will create a more efficient and coherent governing structure and more transparency and predictability in China’s dealings with the world. It lifts the veil of pretense that, somehow, the party and state governance are not one, which is untrue and wholly unnecessary and counterproductive at this stage of China’s development. It signals the maturing of the Chinese political system that shows the world clearly how decisions are made and who is in charge.
The current Chinese system is a good combination of principle and flexibility. The principle of no lifetime tenure, combined with collective leadership and retirement rules, prevent unchecked rule for life by the wrong person. But a degree of flexibility in the retirement mechanism allows the right leader to govern longer. Xi will retire someday. But as long as he continues to lead successfully, that day will be a long way off.
I dare say that Xi has done more for China in five years than Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barack Obama combined did for the United States in 25 years. On the watches of those three American leaders, with slow and incompetent reforms and major catastrophes such as the Iraq War and the financial crisis, the U.S. managed to squander what was arguably the greatest advantage any nation ever had in history at the end of the Cold War and is now mired in dysfunction and losing its leadership position in the world. Meanwhile, opinion surveys, such as this one by the Harvard Kennedy School, show Xi consistently receiving the highest domestic approval ratings of any world leader.
It would be a mistake to judge that Xi is putting himself above the party and the nation. On the contrary, a major theme of his governing philosophy has been the centrality of the party as an institution. And in today’s China, both society and the party are much more robust and pluralistic than the time when Deng came to power.
The feedback mechanisms and channels available to China’s leaders to effectively respond to the needs of society are much more abundant today. It was popular discontent with pollution that spurred Xi’s administration into action and achieved, in just three years, the extraordinary improvement in air quality that took London and Los Angeles decades to accomplish — and the latter went through major deindustrialization, while China remains a growing industrial power.
Xi is now beginning his second term. No one knows for sure how long he will serve. But with his impressivelife track record, it is understandable that there are genuine sentiments for him to lead China for a long time. Sadly, liberal democracy in its current state seems incapable of producing a leader half as good.
This was produced by The WorldPost, a partnership of theBerggruen Institute and The Washington Post.
73Comments
None of this means I agree with the views Mr Li expresses about China's recent constitutional changes. I don't think much of them at all, in fact, not least because some of the most pivotal parts of Mr Li's thesis are in fact merely examples of circular reasoning, e.g. "This reform is good for China simply because the party has developed into the most competent national political institution in the world today". Who says it has? Ah, right, you do. And what yardsticks are you using to measure competence? If allowing meaningful rule of law to operate in the country is one of the yardsticks then I see shameful incompetence.
I said at the beginning how appropriate I felt it was for views such as Mr Li's to be heard in the world's media. Perhaps Mr Li for his part could repay the compliment and persuade his own government to allow unorthodox as well as orthodox political viewpoints to be regularly expressed in China's domestic media; the former are currently conspicuous by their absence. Seeing more of them, or any at all for that matter, in Chinese newspapers, really would be a "good thing". If you're in need of suggestions, how about Xinhua letting Liu Xia write an opinion piece on Charter '08, with the charter itself published alongside? This alone might help Mr Li and many others start to see how "mired in dysfunction", not to mention corruption and injustice, his supposedly "robust and pluralistic" party and society really are.
How can WaPo claim that "democracy dies in darkness" while eating up garbage like this?
To learn more, seehttps://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9D%8E%E4%B8%96%E9%BB%98
(In Chinese)
But I for one, agree whole-heartedly with Mr Li.
There are two truly outstanding world leaders today. Mrs Merkel and Mr Xi. As for the rest...and you know who particular, well, what else can be said!
And as for the state of "democracy" in America - what a joke!
So long as Mr Xi maintains statesmanship, guides China into stability and economic growth, the world is a better place. And this is exactly what he is doing.
And what, the world wants some "unknown" to take his place right now? Kidding right?
And what would we give to have Obama back right now?
For me, I'm throwing in one right arm, two teeth and two grand children.
Get used to it.
The ChiComs have been kidnapping people from foreign nations and taking them back for punishment.
So this guy pretty much had to write it I bet.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html#ch
The gini index of a country is a measure of economic inequality. The higher the index is, the greater the inequality.
The gini indes for china is 46.5. For the United States it is 45.0. For Taiwan it is 33.6.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html#ch
With a democratic government Taiwan, has a higher standard of living than China, and a more equitable distribution of wealth and income.
Nevertheless, Taiwan demonstrates what China can become. I expect China to achieve world hegemony by the end of this century, if not sooner. My hope is that by then China will have adopted a democratic government, found a non coercive way to control population growth, and cleaned up pollution.
The mass round-up of dissidents, real and imagined, is well underway.
The gruesome parade of “sinners” mouthing carefully crafted self-denunciations is back.
The even harsher treatment of minority groups within the mainland, notably Uyghurs and Tibetans, continues apace.
Overshadowing all this is a mass purge within the party itself under the guise of an anticorruption campaign.
And then there’s the personality cult being fostered around Xi Jinping himself, something no leader since Mao has dared emulate.
Now Xi has fully embraced being Mao 2.0 and WaPo celebrates another dictator for life in an openly totalitarian regime where human life counts for nothing.
Shame. Shame. Shame.
How would the Washington Post feel about an editorial praising Donald Trump becoming President-for-life? LOL.
Don't even try to fight Destiny!
No it isn't. What happens when China inevitably gets a Trump type leader?
Xi is factually much worse than Trump. He's a few steps up from Mini Adolf Kim in North Korea.
Xi paints himself as Mao 2.0. That's right, Mao, the world champion of mass murder. Xi is already on the way to rolling out his own version of the festival of murder that was the so called cultural revolution. The purges are already under way.
Morons like you is one of many reasons why Trump got elected.... well that plus he was running against the most incompetent, corrupt candidate in the history of our Republic.
And other than your insults of me, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
At long last, sir, have you no decency?
Wear your cravenness with pride.
Make that "done more TO China" and I'll gladly agree. As for the rest of this puff piece, I hope Xi and his regime never realize just how inept its defenders are in rationalizing the Chinese Communist Party's horrific record.
If you don't care about freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Xi is a great guy.
Or, as our own Dear Leader said, they are "on the right side of history."
Educated people was not what Mao wanted in the masses. I doubt Xi wants it either. So the author should be glad he doesn't live in China.
Trump is a dictator in diapers and the Republican party is looking for one party rule with its gerrymandering, both electoral and judicial.
Oh yeah, probably right here.
Somehow I have a feeling that your children and grandchildren all have British, Swiss or Canadian passports.
Despite of Xi being such a great leader and all this being such a good thing.
Correct me if I am wrong.
This “coup” by Xi is a sign of stress in the system. The Communist Party Oligarchs are worried about the growing aspirations of China’s increasingly wealthy and educated Middle Class. It is worried about the growing frustration of millions of lower class individuals finding it increasingly difficult to rise to the middle class as economic growth slows.
The increase in “security” via monitoring of social media, confrontation of police forces with dissident opinion, networks of informers, is reminiscent of the latter stages of Soviet Union repression of dissidents in the Eastern Block.
The difference is that the Soviet Union was broke, but China is not, yet, but it has its economic challenges.
The concern is that Oligarchies when stressed fall back on “National Security Threats” to unify the populace. The educated Chinese have deep memories of Western Imperialism domination in the 18th/19th Centuries and deep pride in their national bootstrap accomplishments since WWll. Thus, an appeal to national security can stir deep anger about the past mistreatment by the West.
These are challenging times for the US/Sino relationship, and the ability of our present Administration to deal with these nuances is questionable.
Very worrisome.
That didn’t work well with the Shah of Iran, it didn’t work well with Viet Nam, it isn’t working well in Iraq or Afghanistan.
China has a history over 3500 years compared to USA 250 years. Sun Tzu wrote in 500BC, when Ancient Rome was just getting going.
I would not write off these guys too easily.
However, it is not without precedent, and that a bad one. Germany's worst excesses tried to do that, and so did the Italian Fascist party. There are good reasons to prevent one political party from becoming the state.
