Support NeoGAF

[Yoda]

A very troubling development if it happens, especially given the recent amount ramp up of Orwellian domestic spying that's been reported.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/world/asia/china-xi-jinping.html?smid=tw-bna

China’s Communist Party has cleared the way for President Xi Jinping to stay in power, perhaps indefinitely, by announcing on Sunday that it wants to abolish the two-term limit on the presidency — a dramatic move that would mark the country’s biggest political change in decades.

 

[Nikodemos]

Mao 2 Electric Boogaloo here we go.

Every day we stray further from Deng Xiaoping's light...

 

[rokkerkory]

Democracy eroding.

 

[DonJimbo]

It will be like in germany the chancellor has no limits

 

[SDCowboy]

edit: nvm

 

[Durask]

Watch Putin do something similar in 1-2-3

 

[Thelonelykoopa]

Democracy eroding.

Um that isnt how China elects a president anyways it all about the politburo and stuff. Anyways this isnt too surprising after doing the research on Xi Jinpings anti corrumption campaign for school last semester.

 

[Mahadev]

Democracy eroding.

What democracy?

 

[Rudelord]

Democracy eroding.

Hard to erode what was never really there.

 

[King of Foxes]

Watch Putin do something similar in 1-2-3

Yep, Tzar Putin is coming along next.

 

[Zok310]

Don’t like it, but as long as the election process remains democratic and uncorrupted then ok.

 

[michaelius]

Democracy eroding.

What eroding in China ?

 

[BraveOne]

Hello Dictatorship

 

[Singular7]

China has never shed is Communist roots.

They've just made the wise decision to benefit from participating in Western capitalism.

 

[Insane Metal]

Lol.

As someone said above, Putin will do the same.

 

[Atrus]

While that doesn't sound like it bodes well, Canada itself doesn't have term limits so I'm not exactly going to throw pandas at bamboo houses.

 

[llien]

Interesting, I recall reading that even Chinese ministers couldn't remain in power for long.

While that doesn't sound like it bodes well, Canada itself doesn't have term limits so I'm not exactly going to throw pandas at bamboo houses.

Canadian prime-minister has limited powers and depends on his party/coalition.

 

[FloatingIslands]

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984

 

[camelCase]

While that doesn't sound like it bodes well, Canada itself doesn't have term limits so I'm not exactly going to throw pandas at bamboo houses.

That's an awesome phrase.

Still the chinese gov't could use some beating up. I'll gladly throw pandas at a bamboo house that thinks it's okay to lock up journos and who knows what else. Abolishing term limits is only good if the guy in office is really really really good.

 

[Punchpudding]

While that doesn't sound like it bodes well, Canada itself doesn't have term limits so I'm not exactly going to throw pandas at bamboo houses.

Canada has elections while China doesn't.

 

[davepoobond]

America didn’t have term limits on presidents either until the last 75 years or so.

It depends on the electoral process whether or not term limits are a good idea

 

[KINGMOKU]

I go back and forth on this. On one hand you don't want a bad leader in for to long, but why kick out an excellent one? Then I remember political malaise and people just keep voting in the same person because its comfortable.

This of course hinges on the democratic process which I think some people have forgotten doesn't exist in China no matter how much they participate in the worlds economy.

 

[WaterAstro]

Uh, I don't think it matters, but I don't know Chinese politics and elections. I assume people can elect a new leader if they want. I don't know the full story.

Of course there's the possibility of corruption in elections like Russia, but I dunno. China is growing and getting a lot more educated about human rights. They are really turning the table on the corruption surrounding environmental issues. I don't think Chinese politics can be that much of a dictatorship anymore.

Edit: I also want to add that I think term limits are stupid in American politics. I'm Canadian, and the country will vote out a party if we want to, not because of some arbitrary limit. Obama probably would have still been president this term.

 

[Rookje]

I go back and forth on this. On one hand you don't want a bad leader in for to long, but why kick out an excellent one? Then I remember political malaise and people just keep voting in the same person because its comfortable.

This of course hinges on the democratic process which I think some people have forgotten doesn't exist in China no matter how much they participate in the worlds economy.

Because the administration can be corrupt and manipulate the election, or misuse state resources in the election campaign.

Which, if you actually look at history, happens everywhere all the time.

 

[Gitaroo]

Trump will want the same for him, Trump for the next 20 years.

 

[Durask]

Interesting read:

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-invasion

Reads like a Black Mirror episode.

Penalties are set to change dramatically when the government system becomes mandatory in 2020. Indeed, on September 25, 2016, the State Council General Office updated its policy entitled "Warning and Punishment Mechanisms for Persons Subject to Enforcement for Trust-Breaking". The overriding principle is simple: "If trust is broken in one place, restrictions are imposed everywhere," the policy document states.

For instance, people with low ratings will have slower internet speeds; restricted access to restaurants, nightclubs or golf courses; and the removal of the right to travel freely abroad with, I quote, "restrictive control on consumption within holiday areas or travel businesses". Scores will influence a person's rental applications, their ability to get insurance or a loan and even social-security benefits. Citizens with low scores will not be hired by certain employers and will be forbidden from obtaining some jobs, including in the civil service, journalism and legal fields, where of course you must be deemed trustworthy. Low-rating citizens will also be restricted when it comes to enrolling themselves or their children in high-paying private schools. I am not fabricating this list of punishments. It's the reality Chinese citizens will face. As the government document states, the social credit system will "allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step".

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Well history repeats itself. Comparison with countries like USA, Canada, European and others doesn't fair - the leaders their are not supreme rules with the sole power to change everything.
But aren't Xi only in his first term? Because I thought that he is from 2012.

But I've been always said that as soon as the government cannot prepare the successor it means there are structural problems.

 

[Punchpudding]

Uh, I don't think it matters, but I don't know Chinese politics and elections. I assume people can elect a new leader if they want. I don't know the full story.

Of course there's the possibility of corruption in elections like Russia, but I dunno. China is growing and getting a lot more educated about human rights. They are really turning the table on the corruption surrounding environmental issues. I don't think Chinese politics can be that much of a dictatorship anymore.

Edit: I also want to add that I think term limits are stupid in American politics. I'm Canadian, and the country will vote out a party if we want to, not because of some arbitrary limit. Obama probably would have still been president this term.

China is a one party state where the party decides on the leader. The people don't really have a say. Term limits were one of the measures taken to prevent a dictatorship which can very easily come about in this kind of system.

 

[llien]

Having such limits is, in my humble opinion, the main reason, why China is, in the recent decades, doing so much better than USSR/North Korea.

Canada has elections while China doesn't.

Of course there are elections in China, even Stalin's USSR had elections.

But Canadian prime minister isn't directly elected and is under control of the parliament (which can dismiss him at will).

 

[WaterAstro]

China is a one party state where the party decides on the leader. The people don't really have a say. Term limits were one of the measures taken to prevent a dictatorship which can very easily come about in this kind of system.

Do the people get to elect officials in any way? How do officials get into government positions?

 

[Nicktendo86]

Interesting read:

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-invasion

Reads like a Black Mirror episode.

Penalties are set to change dramatically when the government system becomes mandatory in 2020. Indeed, on September 25, 2016, the State Council General Office updated its policy entitled "Warning and Punishment Mechanisms for Persons Subject to Enforcement for Trust-Breaking". The overriding principle is simple: "If trust is broken in one place, restrictions are imposed everywhere," the policy document states.

For instance, people with low ratings will have slower internet speeds; restricted access to restaurants, nightclubs or golf courses; and the removal of the right to travel freely abroad with, I quote, "restrictive control on consumption within holiday areas or travel businesses". Scores will influence a person's rental applications, their ability to get insurance or a loan and even social-security benefits. Citizens with low scores will not be hired by certain employers and will be forbidden from obtaining some jobs, including in the civil service, journalism and legal fields, where of course you must be deemed trustworthy. Low-rating citizens will also be restricted when it comes to enrolling themselves or their children in high-paying private schools. I am not fabricating this list of punishments. It's the reality Chinese citizens will face. As the government document states, the social credit system will "allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step".

This is terrifying. Like, actually terrifying.

 

[Thelonelykoopa]

Do the people get to elect officials in any way? How do officials get into government positions?

No, well Kind of , if I remember correctly the prisident is chosen by the legislative body of china, which that legislative body which is choosen by others groups which are on the provincial level and they are chosen on a more local level.

It should be remember that China is controlled by one party the Communist Party. Now that isnt to say there isnt factions within it, those who study East Asia we often like to split it into two. There is the Princeling faction which Xi is a part of which is essentially the sons and daughters of older communist party officials. There is also Tuanpai faction which is more populist upstarts in Chinese communist party.

As mentioned with Xi's Anti Corruption Campaign he has been charging mostly Tuanpai faction for corruption while ignoring his own Princelings. The one exception being at the start of anti corrumption campaign with the murder of Neil heyward by the wife of bo xilai but outside of that group none idenfied as princelings has been charged with corruption from CCDI afak.

Also in reply to chuckerearm Xi started his second term last november.

 

[TheShadowLord]

This is terrifying. Like, actually terrifying.

then you're going to love this


On the bright side, they might be the first nation to be closer to a cyberpunk city

 

[WaterAstro]

No, well Kind of , if I remember correctly the prisident is chosen by the legislative body of china, which that legislative body which is choosen by others groups which are on the provincial level and they are chosen on a more local level.

It should be remember that China is controlled by one party the Communist Party. Now that isnt to say there isnt factions within it, those who study East Asia we often like to split it into two. There is the Princeling faction which Xi is a part of which is essentially the sons and daughters of older communist party officials. There is also Tuanpai faction which is more populist upstarts in Chinese communist party.

As mentioned with Xi's Anti Corruption Campaign he has been charging mostly Tuanpai faction for corruption while ignoring his own Princelings. The one exception being at the start of anti corrumption campaign with the murder of Neil heyward by the wife of bo xilai but outside of that group none idenfied as princelings has been charged with corruption from CCDI afak.

Also in reply to chuckerearm Xi started his second term last november.

Welp, American political elections are already hard enough to wrap my head around. I think I'll just worry about my own country of Canada, which is pretty easy to understand.

I don't like China anyways lol.

 

[Krixeus]

 

[KINGMOKU]

Because the administration can be corrupt and manipulate the election, or misuse state resources in the election campaign.

Which, if you actually look at history, happens everywhere all the time.

Of course, which is why I waffle on the subject. There are checks and balances in place to preempt that in the States, but I'm not to sure in other countries and I'm sure there's none in China.

Term limits can be good, but for the President it seems like 4 years is a touch to short. I wouldn't mind a two term, 6 years a term deal. Election cycles in the states are a touch to short. By the middle of year 2, campaigning seems to start. Even 5 year, 2 term seems better to me.

 

[iamblades]

Well history repeats itself. Comparison with countries like USA, Canada, European and others doesn't fair - the leaders their are not supreme rules with the sole power to change everything.
But aren't Xi only in his first term? Because I thought that he is from 2012.

But I've been always said that as soon as the government cannot prepare the successor it means there are structural problems.

Don't really need that bit of evidence, all you have to do is look at the level of capital flight out of China. Anyone in the elite who can get their money out is doing it, buying up property wherever they can, at multiples of it's real value if needed. It looks just like Japan in the late 80s.

China has 3 options to deal with the level of corporate debt they are running up to fuel their economic growth.

They can screw the depositors, which given that China has one of the world's highest savings rate is likely to lead to a LOT of angry people.
They can inflate their currency to make everyone whole in nominal terms, which is not substantially better from the depositors POV.
Or, they can let the economic growth come to a complete halt for the next couple decades as Japan has done(likely forever given the demographic situation). Problem is China still has hundreds of millions who are on still on the outside looking in at the economic growth Urban China has experienced and will likely also be very angry if the train stops before they can get on.

China's leadership has always been more interesting in maintaining national cohesiveness and unity than the well-being of their citizens, so expect some fairly brutal tactics if things get bad.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Don't really need that bit of evidence, all you have to do is look at the level of capital flight out of China. Anyone in the elite who can get their money out is doing it, buying up property wherever they can, at multiples of it's real value if needed. It looks just like Japan in the late 80s.

China has 3 options to deal with the level of corporate debt they are running up to fuel their economic growth.

They can screw the depositors, which given that China has one of the world's highest savings rate is likely to lead to a LOT of angry people.
They can inflate their currency to make everyone whole in nominal terms, which is not substantially better from the depositors POV.
Or, they can let the economic growth come to a complete halt for the next couple decades as Japan has done(likely forever given the demographic situation). Problem is China still has hundreds of millions who are on still on the outside looking in at the economic growth Urban China has experienced and will likely also be very angry if the train stops before they can get on.

They may try to go with Russia like solution and screw their own people that do not live in cities. Though it is the modern world tendency. 3rd solution.
Also another solution might be a war with India.

China's leadership has always been more interesting in maintaining national cohesiveness and unity than the well-being of their citizens, so expect some fairly brutal tactics if things get bad.

Well also they possibly dissolve in the future - or at least into multiple regions. But I think it is far in the future.