The path was cleared on Sunday for China’s Xi Jinping to rule the country indefinitely as its rubber-stamp parliament passed a constitutional amendment removing presidential term limits.
The amendment was passed almost – but not quite – unanimously, with two “no” votes and three abstentions, against 2,957 in favor. Party members’ loyalty belied a wave of criticism of the move among internet users, a wave which censors have taken care to extinguish. The amendment was revealed by the Communist Party just last month.
The vote reverses the era of “collective” leadership and orderly succession that was promoted by the country’s late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping to ensure stability following the turbulent one-man rule of Communist China’s founder Mao Zedong. It gives Xi almost total authority to pursue his vision of transforming China into an economic and military superpower by the middle of the century.
Delegates to the National People’s Congress, at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, applauded after each vote in what comes as China’s first constitutional amendment in 14 years. Had members rejected it, it would have been the first time a party diktat had ever failed to pass.
Xi, 64, has consolidated power since 2012, when he was appointed party general secretary, the country’s top office. The position has no term limits, but his two predecessors both gave it up after two terms as part of the “orderly process” established by Deng.
The presidency is a largely ceremonial office, but the now-abolished constitutional limits meant Xi would have had to give it up in 2023. Before Sunday’s vote, US President Donald Trump had joked that Xi was “now president for life.”
As the holder of the top offices of party, state and military, Xi is also referred to as China’s “paramount” leader; and, in 2016, he was officially designated “core” leader by the party. His accumulation of titles has also earned him the nickname “Chairman of Everything.”
Under Xi’s leadership, China has experienced tighter restrictions on civil society, including detentions of activists and lawyers, and ever-stricter internet controls. Simultaneously, he has purged many officials, and sidelined potential rivals, by means of a relentless crackdown on corruption that seems yet to have run its course.
“Dissenting is becoming riskier. The room for debate is becoming narrower. The risk of a policy mistake could become higher and correcting a flawed policy could take longer”
“I think that during the past five years, he has been carrying out a soft coup, including making the Politburo a mere figurehead,” Chinese political commentator Wu Qiang told AFP, referring to the 25-member Communist Party body one notch under the ruling council.
“He wants to prevent power from falling into the hands of technocrats like Jiang (Zemin) and Hu (Jintao),” Wu added, referring to Xi’s two predecessors.
While attention has focused on the term limits, the amendments also include major provisions that will engrave Xi’s eponymous political mantra in the constitution and hand the Communist Party an even larger role in the country’s affairs.
In a written report, the head of the parliament’s Standing Committee, Zhang Dejiang, said the amendments “will ensure the constitution improves and develops in step with the times and provide a firm constitutional guarantee for upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era.”
Yanmei Xie, a China policy analyst for Gavekel Dragonomics in Beijing, said before the vote that: “In the long run, the change may bring some uncertainties, like ‘key man’ risk. Dissenting is becoming riskier. The room for debate is becoming narrower. The risk of a policy mistake could become higher and correcting a flawed policy could take longer.”
Tom Rafferty, China regional manager for the Economist Intelligence Unit, said the amendment made it less likely that a future leadership transition would be an orderly one.
“The amendment generates a level of uncertainty,” he said. “The term limit – while only applying to the lesser role of the state presidency – has also come to shape expectations for the timing of transitions in the leadership of the party and military.”
“Xi Jinping has presided over so many important projects such as economic reforms and the fight against corruption. There was a consensus that we supported him having more time to finish his work”
The Party insists the move merely aligns the presidency with the limit-free titles of party secretary and military chief, claiming “the masses” unanimously demanded the removal of term limits.
However the proposal was kept secret until it was revealed in a state media report on February 25, a week before the legislature’s opening session.
The party later disclosed that Xi had presided over a meeting of the Politburo in September during which the leadership decided to revise the constitution. The party then sought proposals and opinions, culminating in a decision in late January to introduce constitutional amendments at the NPC.
“Xi Jinping has presided over so many important projects such as economic reforms and the fight against corruption. There was a consensus that we supported him having more time to finish his work,” said Dou Yanli, a delegate from eastern Shandong province.
The hastiness of moves to cement Xi’s position has triggered a backlash online, prompting censors to block phrases such as “I disagree” and “emperor” and the image of Winnie the Pooh, the cartoon bear to which Xi has been compared.
Beijing-based activist Hu Jia, who claims authorities forced him to leave the capital during the congress, called the amendment “illegal.” “Xi asked all people to obey the constitution, and then used the amendment to place himself above it,” he said. “He used the constitution as the ultimate legal weapon that binds officials and all citizens.”
With reporting from Agence France-Presse.
Rule in perpetuity? Hardly. Lifting term limits on the largely ceremonial presidency simply brings it into line with Xi’s principal offices: Chairman of the Military Commission and Chief Party Secretary. It’s really, really, not a big deal and it makes zero difference to China’s governance.
Now all three offices must be reviwed and renewed every five years, not just two.
This "wave of criticism" as stated by Atimes should not be taken seriously. They have a penchant of magnifying pro-western biases. Xi is quite popular. How can it be a wave? ????
Right. I don’t recall there has ever been a limit on the terms of Chinese presidents in China’s constitution. If there were, it would be only bring more disruption to the country.
This is bullshit.
You people are missing the point.
The ruler of china is:
1. Paramount leader – without terms of serving.
2. General Secretary of the Communist Party – with already unlimited terms of serving and the second most important position and the re-election is mandatory. It is not for life.
3. Chairman of the Central Military Commission – the third most important position with already unlimited terms of serving and the re-election is mandatory. It is not for life.
His power/authority came from 1, 2 and 3.
4. President of the People’s Republic of China, – a ceremonial office with, now, changed time of serving and the re-election is mandatory. It is not for life.
So, in essence nothing changed. Keep it in mind that Deng Xioaping was the leader of China without holding an office as the head of state for years.
The CIA and MI6 in action, but they are like 70 years old nasty guys in action…
2957 votes in favor. Dissenting votes 2 Abstentions 3 proving that the party body is NOT a rubber stamp party.
The free, non fascist world a[[lauds this development. We are all tired of warmongering and lying brats
Technocracy, rule by engineers, has served China well. But I suppose now that their economy is the world’s largest and still growing at 6.5%, and their science is pulling ahead of the west in important key areas like computing and genetics as well as manufacturing processes, they can forgo technocracy.
Ultimately what is the goal ? Materialism is an empty promise.
While it is easy to say China is a capitalist country, and I have said it myself, is it true ? Capitalism has reached it’s constraining limits.
Wallerstein speaks of the spirit of Davos vs Puerto Allegro, but perhaps it is simpler than that. Perhaps communism wins. But not the old caricature of soviet communism, a new communism that creates a space for personal initiative and achievement within the framework of a just society.
Interesting times . . . we live in interesting times.
Isn’t "rubber stamp" a pejoritive cliche ? You might as well call our democracy a rubber stamp. It certainly functions that way.
The ritual of periodic voting, to rubber stamp the legitimacy of governments that can and do act as they please between elections, especially in pervasive contradiction of election promises, is a system to be admired . . . but only if one can hold one’s nose.
We need to study the Chinese system instead of caricturing it. Obviously it is very performant, scalable and adaptable.
If we think of a political system as a system, a network, a network of information, we might get somewhere.
I’m not the originator of the idea: the idea the Chinese system is hierarchical, but with huge flows of information "top down / bottom up".
If we think of it as a dictatorship we have an incomplete understanding – a caraciture – where information only flows one way, from the top down. Command economies tend to be inefficient. But it’s not that; it’s efficient and adaptable. There necessarily is a huge information flow bottom up, and we don’t fully understand how this works. But it does. Information shuttles back and forth iteratively, scaled to a polity 1.3 billion in size.
We can consider democracy from the same information flow viewpoint. It seems the information flow is choked or impeded, discordant, and that large segments of the polity are simply voiceless. They have no capacity for any influence. Then there is the whole fake news issue, where the system seems to facilitate the flow of disinformation better than information. My daughter said "it’s like it’s setup to fail." I can also observe low levels of adaptability. Every problem elicits the same responses that failed the last time. Some problems are completely ignored. There are many inconvenient truths.
If western democracy cannot solve as straightforward a problem as gun control, what hope is there that it can solve anything ?
Malaysia has shown no interest in claiming the cash and assets seized in Switzerland, Singapore, US, Hongkong and Indonesia worth billions of dollars. Najib’s BN government cannot do anything to make claims for these seizure as they know they are the ones that have misused tax payers money in the whole mess. They are now biting their lips and banging their chest lying to Malaysians that they are not involved. Are Malaysians so stupid to believe that? We Malaysians are optimistic that BN will fall in this coming election. The new government will then go after all these corrupted officers and put them where they rightfully belong. There shall be no doubt that reform will take place soon.
Ken Nguyen, look as though you are a goldsmith who can tell golden coloured thread from real ones. Most of the Muslim women wore golden laced kebayas to attend functions. Your slanderous behavior towards Anwar and his wife carries a hidden motive best known to you. The truth on Najib’s wrongdoings in 1MDB had been out now.. Malaysians, majority are aiming for a political reform, why talk about personal attires, religion and past bullshits assumptions whereas the obvious proof of deceit have been known all over the world. If you are not a Malaysian., shut up and if you are one., go and make some research again before releasing your flatulence.