Japan-
Shinzo Abe: 2012-current
Singapore-
Halimah Yacob: 2017-current
Lee Hsien Loong: 2004-current
South Korea-
Moon Jae-in: 2017-current
Lee Nak-yeon: 2017-current
Taiwan
Tsai_Ing-wen: 2016-current
I'll maybe give you Singapore's PM, but this is definitely not "decades".Alternatively (with apologies for playing a bit fast and loose in terms of President/Prime Minister/Secretary - political systems come in many shapes and sizes) and note that in some of these political party doesn't make much sense - when a military strongman stages a coup and holds power for a decade and a half, is there really a ruling political party?
Japan-
Liberal Democratic Party: 1955-1993, 1994-2009, 2012 to present
Singapore-
People's Action Party: 1959 to present
Lee Kuan Yew: 1959 to 1990
Goh Chok Tong: 1990 to 2004
South Korea-
Syngman Rhee: 1948 to 1960 (interestingly, exempted himself from an eight-year limit in 1954)
Park Chung-hee: 1963 to 1979 (took power in military coup, assassinated)
Taiwan-
Chiang Kai-shek: 1950 to 1975
Kuomintang Party: 1950 to 1996, had the advantage of being a single-party state until roughly late eighties
Definitely some decades in there.Obviously, no: the headline is significant; east asian governments are subject to policy change and reform even within a single party rule; and this is a canard. There is a difference between indefinite rule by an abstract "party" and indefinite rule by an actual person. And China is crossing that gap.
The Chinese communist obviously don't have a democratic mandate. But I think it would be a mistake to think that they don't have widespread popular support.
The point is, no matter how great Hu is as an individual the danger is that granting him perpetual unquestioned power creates a precedent for a future monster to gain a similar lock on power. In a democracy, the voters can depose a monster peacefully. In the cureent Chinese system a monster would only get 2 terms. So the question is, are you prepared to accept Hu getting power to life, at the risk of a future person to get it being a Mugabe, or Gaddafi, or Amin?
In a system with very few constraints on absolute power, is it really prudent in the long term to remove all of the remaining ones? Finally, how much can you trust the judgement of someone willing to impose that risk on his country for his own benefit?
The problem with the CCP is that there is no real feedback loop. Their support is very fragile, and it would just take one recession to break it (they have no "lets throw the turkey's out" pressure valve).
My guess is that CCP is going to be popular and safe at the realm as long as growth is strong (so maybe we agree there).
People in China can only express their discontent by rioting (which happens in China, a lot). They have no other real way of communicating with officials, they can't even make sneaky jokes on the internet anymore to express their dissatisfaction. That alone is a very dangerous situation.