Hacker News Reader

Comment by dis-sys | Hacker News Reader

When Shinzo Abe is serving his 4th term as Japan's PM, when Angela Merkel is serving her 4th term as German's Chancellor, surely it is not suitable for Xi to stay in the office for more than 2 terms.

View on HN

No, it's not suitable. Merkel's tenure in not restricted by law, mostly because chancellor is appointed by majority party/coalition in the parliament. Every election cycle there's a very real chance CDU alliance and CDU appointed chancellor would have to go. In fact, it's a certainty Merkel isn't going to hold this post for life and then pass it down in her family.

While in China, there's a 22nd amendment inspired safeguard in the constitution, specifically to prevent another Mao-like figure from coming to power. The safeguard is being removed specifically for Xi: you can't seriously argue he's irreplaceable across the population of 1.7 billion. The country turns from being run by an authoritarian committee to a personal dictatorship.

And thus begins the decline of China.

What a bunch of hyperbole. Rome flourished following Caesar for quite a while. Only if you are sure that China is now beyond the event horizon and unable to change it's constitution going forward should you make such a statement.

This a playbook that was implemented across numerous places in the last couple decades. Can't ever recall one instance of peaceful reversal.

You are welcome to illustrate with a counterpoint. Something more recent than two millennia ago, preferably.

Why would the reversal have to be peaceful ?

Russia in the 1990s... but with about 10 times more people.

In a democracy there is at least a well defined process for removing leaders which is outside those leader’s control. Even then, I think the US system of term limits has its benefits and think it might be advantageous here in the UK. After all both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, who at least in their early terms seemed to be effective leaders, became clearly out of touch towards the ends end even in the eyes of many of their own supporters.

However in an autocracy with no other clearly defined mechanism to constrain the power of a leader, term limits at least fulfil that function. The danger is that with no fixed constraints or limits on power in such a system, if a monster gains power or if power creates a monster, there’s nothing anyone can do. The question is, does the risk of that happening outweigh the risk of ejecting a capable leader from power earlier than necessary.

So even if you think Hu a Jintao is the best leader for China now and after 2 terms, the precedent could lead to someone you think is a terrible leader gaining perpetual power later.

I think term limits are a weak defence against autocratic leaders, because in such situations the separation of powers necessary to maintain the constitutional check usually doesn't exist. I.e. there's no independent judiciary or opposition bloc in the legislature. In a system like China, these institutions are politically inert facades, designed to outwardly resemble their democratic counterparts, but with actual power remaining wholly invested in the executive, which is wholly controlled by the ruling party.

The real checks on an autocratic leader are rivalries within the ruling party's elite, and once a leader like Xi has achieved dominance there, then amending the constitution to remove the term limit clause is trivial.

Completely agree, term limits are a weak check but better than nothing. It reserves power to a political elite that control the succession process, but at least that’s better than a single individual.

Are you seriously comparing Merkel to Xi? Or the political structure of Germany to China?

Haha, Moodles, have you not heard about Merkel jailing the opposition, executing people in the thousands, censoring the internet with the (very much known to her) Big German Wall, and the corruption in everyday German life?

Of course not, Merkel will be politically gone in a few years, she will be slowly forgotten just like many previous German leaders. There will probably be a couple of words about her in the book of history but do you believe she is going to shape the future of this world? ;)

Some might argue that she indeed shaped the future of this world by accelerating the demise of Europe as a modern and heavyweight force in the world.

Wut? The EU in the Merkel years went through some complex growth crisis; she helped resolving them in ways that undeniably benefited Germany and, in some cases, helped the bloc as well. Some of her choices (Schaußle...) weren’t great, but she hardly killed the EU project single-handedly - the project is actually very much alive, with commissioners increasingly flexing their muscles towards the world at large. If anything, she’s managed to keep some contradictory stances together for longer than many expected.

> she helped resolving them in ways that undeniably benefited Germany

A lot of smart people actually deny that.

Which ones?

In other news: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/germany-books-...

> modern

I don't know: digital rights, digital privacy, climate change? Those all sounds fairly modern to me.

> heavyweight

What other large political institution in the world says "Nope, not with our citizens" to big data, and actually sees it through?

> the demise of Europe

has been greatly exaggerated.

You’re aware of automatic face recognition in Berlin‘s public places, the Diesel scandal, flight passenger data agreements and so on, aren’t you?

For your data point, I can assure you that eu govs are just lagging behind, they failed to keep pace. They will get there, trust me.

I think she already has, for the better.

This comment does nothing to assuage the impression that Xi's goals are of an autocratic nature.

What a blasphemy, to compare officials and political systems of different countries! What must he/she have been thinking!

In other news, more US-centric brainwashing coming soon...

The point is that the GP did not compare political systems, but only looked at the number of terms that leaders are serving in very different systems, as if that was a meaningful comparison.

You don't need US-centric brainwashing to understand the difference between Germany, with our seven(!) major parties, and China.

Five of the major parties just raised their own salaries substantially, while the population widely earns EUR 500 above social security level.

There are many parallels between Germany and China. The population gets low wages in order to facilitate exports, which benefits the ruling classes and the civil servants.

The lavishly paid functionaries of the state television keep people calm.

The German president can only be elected two times and he has limited power. The German chancellor also has limited power. Terms for chancellor are not limited, but he/she has to be elected every 4 years. Merkel barely made it this time, and it's almost certain she will not be re-elected next time and also very likely that she will not strife for candidacy next time.

Comparing China's system with Germany's makes a lot of sense, but you have to do it correctly. If Xi would be a chancellor with limited power in a parliament that consists of members of 6 different parties, then it would be less of a problem if he ran as a candidate in a third election.

Isn't the issue that they are discussing getting rid of term limits altogether? As opposed to setting a higher term limit? If so, how is it a fair comparison to Germany or Japan? I'm sure we'd have even more outrage if any number of countries decided to get rid of term limits altogether. I could be misunderstanding you though.

Germany doesn't have term limits for the Chancellor either. It isn't a huge problem in practice since the role doesn't have quite that much power and shifting majorities in parliament tend to prevent constant re-election of the same person.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com