443. Removal of two term limit — extensive discussions by a group of oversea Chinese
Removal of two term limit is the most important Chinese political event in recent years. Extensive discussions of this event took place among a group of oversea Chinese through email letters. Some of them are kept here on this website. They have not been edited. Generally speaking, this group of oversea Chinese support the removal of the term limit. We wish that President Xi Jinping will bring a great future to China and Chinese people.
Dear All:
You might like to see this short report.
Trump on China’s Xi consolidating power: ‘Maybe we’ll give that a shot some day.’
In the closed-door remarks, a recording of which was obtained by CNN, Trump praised China’s President Xi Jinping for recently consolidating power and extending his potential tenure, musing he wouldn’t mind making such a maneuver himself.
“He’s now president for life. President for life. And he’s great,” Trump said. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot some day.”
We all pray for his continuous success and achievements for Chinese people. 但願他成功而留芳萬世。
Two term limit was introduced by the Republicans because they envied the accomplishment of F D R.
It is bad idea, because the limit applies only to the president and not to the senators and house representatives. It has created a power house of selfish legislators.
Xi is NOT president for life. He never said he wanted. It requires a vote among the committee members (7 of them). These high up politicians are selected because of their abilities, not because of their popularity. Hundred thousand Frenchmen may be wrong, a critique during the French Revolution, still holds.
Trump said “not a bad idea” because he wants to be President for life.
America is the scene of democracy built upon abnormal popularity, look at the history (slavery, discrimination against women, blacks, minorities, etc). American democracy survived on its rich resources and, after WWII, on the power of military.
However, military power does not last forever. For every measure, there is always a counter measure. Now Putin mentioned the use of cruise missiles, which are almost indefensible. Now, the time is up.
3月6日 (7天前)
I may be wrong, but I believe most countries, including Germany, do not have term limits for the head of state. In the US, term limit is applied to the president, but not to all members of congress. Without term limit, we do have a few very good senators and congressmen. With term limit, we have a few miserable presidents too. I do not believe term limit is what counts.
From history, it seems most dynasties or republics each lasted only for about 200 to 300 years, no matter it was democracy as in Greece or Rome, or ruling thru an emperor like in China.
Is there a wise person in the group that can explain that?
Even without the rule of two term limit, not every president or national leader can expect to rule for life. In fact, I am not sure whether or not Donald Trump will get his second term. So, limit or no limit, it may not affect his chance anyway.
With the limit, leaders will less likely plan long term development. For
instance, the Belt and Road project obviously is not something that will show real results in ten years. It is a long term, a very long term project. China has its old say “千军易得，一将难求。“ During WWII, FDR was asked to have four terms of presidency to lead the fight. Judging from what he has been doing, I personally think that Xi Jinping appears, so far, to be one of those outstanding leaders we can find only a very few in the 5,000 years of Chinese history. Let him lead China to fulfill the Chinese Dream!!
With the limit, American presidents will have the inclination to avoid solving
difficult problems. Pass the problems to the next one when he is out of the White House. I think that is one of the reasons, Americans still do not have a good national health protection plan. I think that is one of the reasons, USA can accumulate over ten million illegal immigrants. I think that is one of the reasons that American Government can have such a big multi-trillion dollar debts.
Looking back over the last 70 years after the founding of the PRC, we have two most powerful leaders and the third one is looming.
During the Mao era, he fought three border wars to defense China despite the fact that China ‘s economy was in deep trouble and near collapse.
No one dared at the time to fight the 16 nation’s armies in Korea
under the United Nations banner with American. But Mao took the
challenge and brought the stability of Northern China
for many decades.
Later, India with the encouragement of UK and US, China was
forced to enter the border war with India and also entered the border
clash with even the big brother USSR and won.
It brought decades of peace in our Western regions for stability and helped China the needed time for the development of heavy industry in Northern
China .
After Deng took over, he had this tremendous courage to shift from rigid social left policy to the market driving state capitalism with great
success. Without such authority, he might not be able to get even back Hong Kong , might not be able to carry on his open and reform policies and he even started the risky Vietnam war to prevent Vietnam to
swallow Cambodia and Laos at the time.
We do need to provide long term absolute power for a good leader to carry out his drastic reforms and policies for the good of the country without wasting a lot of time during his second term to find a new heir, to avoid potential power struggle and to assure the continuation of his current
long term policies.
Xi has a very long term blue print for China by bringing China to the world Center stage by 2050. His focused poverty fight, corruption fight, one Belt and one Road program leading to China Dream require the stability of power structure that can endure any challenges. I am sure CIA will not leave China alone and will continue to create instability and turmoils in Taiwan, Tibet , and Hong Kong among others.
I support the no term limit amendment for the good of China . What is good about keep changing the leaders doing nothing?
Xi’s new era is coming and will be realized in the next decades or so. It is
good for the nation to have a very long range plan and focused goals for the concerted efforts of the people for the nation.
Your view is exactly what Mom thinks. Power corrupts and absolute power leads to absolute corruption. Very very true!
But try to understand China ’s current governing situation. The Chinese constitution states clearly that the country designated the Communist Party to lead the country with close consultations with other friendly parties.
The current governing mechanism with three branches is as follows: the party, the administration and the military. The party’s general secretary is the party’s big boss with 7 ruling members in its politburo which is the sole power center.
Administration starts as President, Prime Minister with all other bureaucrats, and the military commission controlling the military.
Xi is the party General Secretary, President of the country and Chief of the Military Commission. All power is concentrated in the party’s secretary who
appoints all party secretaries to every bureaucrats and state enterprises.
President in China , just like UK and Japan , has no real power but Xi needs it for easy diplomat visits as protocol requires. Governing system is similar to Russian created by Lenin for a full control.
Today’s NYTimes reported the following. Xi’s style is very similar to the late President Chiang Jin-guo in Taiwan who focused on economic development leading to Taiwan
as one of the four dragons in Asia economic achievements in the early
1970’s including South Korea , Singapore , Hong Kong and Taiwan .
With the economic miracle and drastic improvement of standard of living, he loose the party’s political grab and allowed the multiparty to enter the election eventually leading to Taiwan current democracy as we all know it. It is worth to note here Taiwan KMT party setup is identical to Russian’s type.
China is a developing country and has been ruled by emperors for thousands of years. Democracy is net and the sudden open up for everyone means a big mess with interest groups and elites blocks and
religious groups trying to take control for self interest.
To me with Xi’s longterm blue print for China ’s next 60 year development focusing on fighting poverty and corruption and making good living for people is the right goals for China at the present time. To me he is a known quantity with the least risk for China .To select a new leader through formal process looks more acceptable but the reality is that he may not be
able in full control and in charge. Country can go into turmoil like Trump’s election with uphill learning curve to waste precious years for development.
This is a nutshell in my justification. China needs development now and democracy can wait a little bit longer. Chinese constitution restricts the presidency for two terms only but the Communist party rules have no term
limitation on General Secretary. Only an unwritten understanding set by Deng restrains any leader to assume his third term. Xi can continue to
be party’s general secretary as his third term without the title of presidency if constitution is not amended. So there is no real effect other than a formality.
Disagree. Term limits are bad for benevolent dictators who will be inhibited by the forced change in leadership. Term limits, however, are designed to
mitigate against corruption of power.
From elected leaders turning into dictators. It is what was at the essence of how the US was founded. Also if Europe and the rest of the world was ruled by monarchy’s that were selected based on blood line and other
irrelevant factors. Washington could have been a lifelong president but chose to step down to create a new paradigm for governing that the world had never seen.
The real measure will be how resilient our institutions will be to external forces wanted to corrupt or change it for short term gain. Agree?
I see Brian’s view point as well as yours. Brian is born in America
and trained in America and understandably his western political view point is valid.
History had shown that unlimited terms in a powerful office such as presidency will lead to corruption in power or monetary gain concentration. Since America is only 1/4 of population as China .
She had practiced democracy for a couple of hundreds of years. So there is a good foundation. We Chinese are behind in that area than America .
In order to catch up our living standards and modernization for the Chinese people of 1.3 billion population, political stability is a must. As you said well, democracy can wait in China .
IF there is a corruption coming because of this change of long term for
the presidency I believe Chinese people will revolt and the term limit will change to shorter limit naturally. By the way, Xi is 65 today, his term
ends in 2023 for two terms by current rules. By extending another 2 terms he will be 80, same age as we are today. His health, energy and mobility will limit him from serving any longer. He would ask to step down by himself, I bet.
Human being is not immortal. This is how I view the term limit issue as of now.
中國有句話「得天下易，治天下難」把這一句話改一改「得權力易，完成民族復興使命的諾言難」。用英文的一句名言”you
can fool some people sometimes, but you can not fool all
people all the time”.
Based on what Xi has achieved so far, there is strong
indication that he may fulfill his big promise for us,
our
big dream of 中華民族復興之夢。
說得好，有時候，得天下也很容易，像宋朝的黃袍加身很容易得到天下。以文壓武治國，成就了中國文學鼎盛之期，功德無量。
蔣介石繼承國父孫中山的黃埔軍校統一中國，很容易的得到了天下，結果是蔣家的天下，陳家的黨，孔宋家族的腐敗斷送了他的天下。
毛澤東的槍桿子出政權，打敗了蔣介石，熟讀了司馬光的資治通鑒，進北京絕不做第二個李自成，從歷史上吸取教訓，成就了他的霸業。
習近平從太子黨的天上落難到陝西窯洞的地方，深深領悟到人民群眾的痛苦和權力的重要，要成大事二者都不可缺。一朝得勢大權一把抓，才可以推行新政，朝反腐扶貪為人民謀幸福的中華民族復興的道路上前進。
這就是活生生的、血淋淋的、一篇中國的現代史。誠如毛澤東所說，革命不是請客吃飯，是要殺頭的，習近平的新政改革就是另一種革命，兩者都是一個道理，做不好是要殺頭的。
其实, 得天下也非易事。当年项羽费尽了力拔山兮之力,
结果天下还是给刘邦拿去了。蒋介石也费了九牛二虎之力打败了日本鬼子。江山还是给了老毛。
治国确实是难。刘邦用黄老之术安定了天下。老毛却搞得天下大乱。邓小平行。现在就要看习大大了。如惠发所说,
复兴中华民族,
谈何容易?
习近平 饱读中国经书,
雄才大略。应该做得到。全世界都在看着。
想到毛對中國歷代君王的評價：「惜秦皇汉武，略输文采；
唐宗宋祖，稍逊风骚。
一代天骄，成吉思汗，只识弯弓射大雕。
俱往矣，数风流人物，还看今朝。」
秦統一六國，漢征服匈奴，唐引入佛経，元征服西藏，明下西洋，清收復台灣，毛鄧打了四場邊界保衛戰。這才形成了現在的中國版圖。習雄心勃勃想要把南海納入中國的內海。宋好像對中國版圖沒有什麼貢
成吉思汗的版圖雖然大。但不能算是中国 对中国版圖的贡献最大是凊朝。先不先满人將東三省满州变成中国领土。満人太少 面对一百与一比的汉人 大清朝庭找蒙古人和西藏人幚了统制中国 於是西藏 内蒙 外蒙都变成中国领土。在康熙时代大清版啚包括大片西伯利亜的東部直到太平洋边。车乾隆时代 新彊也被大清佔领 这是中国歷史上国家面積最大的时代
他的言行作为, 非常吻合”外示儒学, 内用黄老”的理念。外表温文尔雅(贤?)。但行事果断而有章法, 更有宏观的远见(能?)。因此从习近平的人品才学修养以及能力和他的视野各方面在历史的镜子捡视下都证明他能完成惊世大业。如果他懂得道家的真理, 也必懂得”功成名遂身退”。
如他能做到, 在历史上习近平不但将是一位举世伟人, 也将是一位古今稀有的完人
In George Ting’s analysis, we find good emperors in history who devote their life’s work for people’s welfare, following Confucian ideals. People enjoyed long periods of peace and prosperity when they had good leaders, even in a monarchy. The question is, does democracy produce better leaders? Is it more efficient to produce results? Developments in recent years makes one wonder.
The problem is “lifetime’s work.” Until his death Chiang Kai-shek still believed he was doing good for the people (!). There should be checks and balances. Democracy does not work because their check and balances have been understood and used for personal gains. Monarch system also proved to be defective. Humans are trying to experiment with the political systems. Now we have recognized the evils of the U S system, the Chinese system is still evolving. So far so good. U S system is stagnated in the “thinking of forefathers”. We know forefathers can be wrong (and indeed, were wrong in many respects). You can draw your conclusions. Nothing lasts forever. Three hundred years is about the average time. Now the U S system is at this average time.
惠发这个例子举得很好。遇到在国家大事的危机处理, 不能感情用事, 而且要当机立断。玄武门之变是一个不能避免的历史悲剧。
我和余元的看法相当不同。李渊要负最大的责任。可能无论怎么做都不能避免这个 悲剧的发生。
再说天安门事件。如果学生得胜了。像吾尔开西, 王丹这些人来主政, 中国会变成什么样? 西方人可乐了。就像Gorbachev将苏联拖垮一样。
有道理。
我非常同意阁下独到的见解及对習的期望。
他的言行作为,
非常吻合”外示儒学,
内用黄老”的理念。外表温文尔雅(贤?)。但行事果断而有章法,
更有宏观的远见(能?)。因此从习近平的人品才学修养以及能力和他的视野各方面在历史的镜子捡视下都证明他能完成惊世大业。如果他懂得道家的真理,
也必懂得”功成名遂身退”。
如他能做到,
在历史上习近平不但将是一位举世伟人,
也将是一位古今稀有的完人.
說得好，有條有理，如果真的如你所推測的習大大的性格，那是中國人的大幸了。
相较习近平和蒋经国治国的理念, 确实有相同之处。尤其在以天下苍生为念的主题上。其最大不同之处在于”天下”的理念。可能因为受地域的限制, 蒋经国的天下只限于台湾一地。当然也包括他伸展不到的中原大陆。而习近平的天下可大多了。五洲四海, 凡是有”苍生”(包括所有有生命的个体)的地方都是他所关心的。这可以从他”一带一路”的理念和注重大自然的保养看得出来。
——————————————-
習的個性很像蔣經國，清廉，親民，果斷。蔣到後期，經濟建設起飛之後，開放黨禁，蔣家退出政壇，還政於民，開創了台灣的民主，中國民主化的奇蹟。各種跡象顯示，習近平會走同一條路，因為台灣對給他來講，就是一個很好的實驗證明。
你從儒學黃老的角度來看，我從台灣的民主發展過程角度來看，結論都差不多，所以中國人民是有幸了。
其实, 如习近平能全部完成他的梦想,
那不仅是中国梦而是天下梦。非但是中国人之大幸,
也是天下人之大幸。
余兄所言极是。历史的记载不可能完全正确。还是英文字History较达意-“他说的故事”。
自古夺谪斗争层出不穷。历史记载-
他说的故事-並不完全正确。以玄武门之变为例,
大部份认为李世民是出于自卫反击(self-defense)。但资治通鉴曾提出怀疑。
习近平能走到今天这一步,
很不容易。如元兄所言。很多内情是我们所不知道的。
对李世民和李渊以及李建成李吉如的功过,
就让我们自己心中的一把尺去衡量”他说的故事”吧。
即使不論夏商,
世襲帝制自周始至民國, 亦己逾三千年。其間治世亂世雜陳, 但輩有聖君能臣出, 以此至今仍矻立於世,
足見專制在中國並非十惡不赦而有其可取處。
周有成康之治,
漢有文景之治,
唐有開元之治,
清有乾隆盛世,
皆長於二十年。即使習再連仼兩屆, 其在位亦僅二十年, 無足為奇。
成康,
文景,
開元,
乾隆藉周公輔政,
武帝雄才,
唐宗奠基, 康雍治國而各有其盛世。社會繁榮, 經濟發達, 輕徭薄賦, 提創文教, 去除特權, 改革吏制軍制等, 每一治世皆如此。
我國因鄧改及全球化世界趨勢而漸富強。一如古之聖君, 習近平可為中國未來之超强而立下厚實基礎。唐太宗所言 “以古為鏡, 可以知興替”,
我等可借镜。
我國歷朝換代,
漢外戚宦官,
唐藩鎮黨爭,
宋重文輕武,
明閹黨外敵,
清閉關鎖國,
各有其原。我國二十一世紀雖將鼎盛, 國家領導者須居安思危,
見微知著, 以使國祚永恒。
至於習近平連任一事, 僅為歷史長河之一時揚波, 我完全以平常心看待。
元兄博学, 替我们上了一堂中国三千年的历史课。
从这堂课中有没发现一个有趣的问题?
成康,
开元,
文景,
乾隆都不是开国皇帝。只有没提被起的贞观之治的李世民(唐太宗)才可算是开国元勋。
去探索其中原因是个有趣又重要的议题。可能也是习近平能成功的重要因素。
可以想当然, 每个朝代开始都是日子过得艰苦, 否则就不需改朝换代了。因此需要好几代的努力才能创造盛世。但这不应该是唯一的因。李世民能创造贞观之治就是个很好的证明。
能否听听大家的意见?
太宗非唐開國之帝,
創立王朝者, 為其父唐高祖李淵。
隋煬帝巡幸江南時死於兵變。李淵稱帝於長安。其後六年間掃除群雄, 一统天下。二年後 (公元626年), 李世民弒兄弟於玄武門, 李淵被尊為太上皇,禪位於世民, 是為唐太宗,開啟貞觀之治。
貞觀九年,
李淵驾崩,
廟號高祖。
高祖在位僅八年, 多隨隋舊制, 建立初唐行改, 經濟, 軍事雛形, 為其子之輝煌政績開路。太宗知人善任, 以農為本, 休養生息, 發展商業, 鞏固邊彊, 開放國界, 完善科舉, 為一代聖君。隋唐更替, 戰亂使人丁大减, 人心思安, 人少而耕地多, 農產迅速發展。隋煬帝雖勞民傷財, 但大運河溝通南北, 便利民生, 功在千秋, 唐最先受益。
以上四項,
對實現貞觀之治應有其助。
兆治所言甚是, 唐太宗李世民貞觀之治, 確實奠基更輝煌之玄宗開元之治。二者相連之詳清,
須歷史學者闡述。
今天中国人都因习近平提出要复兴中华民族而感到振奋。又为他能否完成这项大业而有几分担忧。
元兄历数中国历代英主的大治来鼓励大家。曹兄提出伟大的领袖应兼具贤与能。
回顾历史, 那些成大业的英明君王(英君)是如何做到的?
培养一个英君是需要一段长时间的磨练。首先要知(经世之学), 要悟(其道理), 再要经过时间的(磨)练, 最后才付之于行。 这也就是为甚么开国皇帝往往做不到。但也有少数奇才能”learn on the job”.
大概有两种英君可成大业。一种是自己有本事, 另一种是本事不足但有能人辅佐。当然, 最理想是两者兼具。
先说第二种。刘邦以一个乡镇长的地位居然可以击败不可一世的楚霸王而建立了延续两百多年的西汉王朝。之所以可做到是靠两位能臣, 萧何和张良。后勤补及全靠萧何。运筹帷幄则全靠张良。张良的出生, 师门出自黄石公。道家人士。得天下后, 众开国大臣中, 除萧何外, 仅张良得全身而退。这要拜其能遵守”功成名遂身退”的道家思想。汉高祖能安邦定天下。想必得自张良传授一套道家以柔克刚有如一部”九阳真经”的”建国大纲” -刘邦就是那种能”learn on the job”的奇才。一面学一面用。
再说李世民。他自己有超人的本事, 文武双全。武功不用说。看他的一手好字就知道文才也不差。再加上拥有一批文武能臣, 更是如虎添翼。在他的名臣中。许多出自王通门下。如房玄龄, 李靖, 魏徵, 李密, 杜如晦等。 王通虽是儒学家, 但也精通道学。主张三家(儒道释)合一。他有个道家字号叫文中子。在唐朝开国的时代这批王同的门生大臣很可能合作撰写了一篇外柔内刚儒道合一的”建国方略” – 有如一部”九阴真经”。加上那部”九阳真经” 就渐渐形成了”外示儒学, 内用黄老”的统御术。历代传了下来。
做皇帝其实非常幸苦。在继位前, 每天要上早课。学的就是”经世之道”。要做一位明君是不容易。
让我们现在来看习近平。当然他不是开国元勋。从邓小平开始, 每位领导人都替他铺了路。除此, 他的经历和李世民很像。他生在”太子党”的一群人中。年青时被下放过了一段很长的苦难日子, 磨练了他。然后一步一步从基层干部做起。一面做一面学。一直爬升到最高峰。我们所不清楚的是在这段长时间他到底学到了甚么和悟到了甚么。只能从他的言行中去探索。
首先, 仅就看他这五年的政绩就可以评定他有过人的治国能力。而且重点在人民的福祉。发展经济, 基础建设, 环境保护. 在科技方面, 非但要赶上世界水准更要超越。同时在军事上也朝强国方向发展。做到民富国强。对一个中国国民来讲, 还有甚么更多能要求?
但这些对习近平似乎都还不够。他那”一带一路”的宏观思想如没有饱读经书, 对中国的传统文化有深切的认识, 是不可能形成的。
他的言行作为, 非常吻合”外示儒学, 内用黄老”的理念。外表温文尔雅(贤?)。但行事果断而有章法, 更有宏观的远见(能?)。因此从习近平的人品才学修养以及能力和他的视野各方面在历史的镜子捡视下都证明他能完成惊世大业。如果他懂得道家的真理, 也必懂得”功成名遂身退”。如他能做到, 在历史上习近平不但将是一位举世伟人, 也将是一位古今稀有的完人.
多謝兆治長文。詞意並茂, 包括對習近平之表現及期望, 我皆認同。
對唐太宗之論逑, 願作下列補充
我等皆知李世民弒同胞兄弟以登大位。當時如不先下手, 可能自身難保, 以此難以苛責。但事後盡殺其侄(建成與元吉共有十子), 則非仁者所當為,難脫沈重之道德負荷。太宗恐亦自知英名有損, 晚年多次欲調閱<>。此書由史官執筆, 記載皇帝言行, 為求公正, 一向不示君。太宗索之再三, 皆遭史官所拒, 直至當時宰相房玄齡。房不敢抗旨, 太宗得見記載玄武門之文, 並作如下指示:
<>卷七:“昔周公誅管,蔡而周室安,季友鴆叔牙而鲁國寧。朕之所為, 義同此類, 蓋所以安社稷, 利萬民耳。史官執筆,何患有隐? 宜即改前浮詞, 直書其事。”
此話明顯昭示其意: 玄武門事件, 即如周與季之替天行道, 安社稷, 利萬民, 史官可直言, 無需以浮詞粉飾。史官因此而改寫原作。 太宗欽定指導, 為玄武門之事定調。此舉是否有為其弒兄奪嫡合理化之嫌, 應由歷史學者定論。但史官因受此干預而篡改史書, 則不廣為人知。
唐太宗英明, 豐功偉績為不爭史實。但其弑兄殺侄之不仁, 不尊史官之無道, 令我難以尊重。前文逑及諸帝聖世之治,貞觀未列,僅表達個人之不滿。
如果我們用唐太宗的說法，那鄧小平也可以說，六四的天安門事件，是為中國取得二十年穩定發展而替天行道。我想這也說得過去，你說對嗎？
如為富家, 則兄弟爭產, 官司不斷, 代代不絕, 坊間與媒體隨處可見。財能載舟, 亦能覆舟。即平凡如我等, 亦不可不慎。
習近平掌權後, 反腐, 整軍, 除特勢, 強鄰外交, 振經去貧, 其中艱苦, 决非我等所能想像。坦白實言, 國內反勢力應無處不在。他願意延役, 以行動展現其獻身為國之堅强企圖心。 誠願他健康 平安, 帶領恢復中國超強之歷史地位。
Friends, Term limits are necessary so that we can throw the bums out. Man cannot be trusted. People who aspire to lead a nation are usually obsessed with power. And as we have already been reminded, power is extremely corruptive.
1 out of a 1000 dictators is benevolent, competent and not corrupt. We have had that one dictator in recent history. That was Lee Kuan Yew. And even he was not perfect. Regarding XJP, he was mentored by LKY, that is why he also wants to consolidate power and rule for a long time. LKY also taught him to be strong but practical. And that once you have more than one political party, it becomes very hard to get things done because LKY saw how bad our Congress is/was. He also noted how our legislators were bought by special interest groups.
Regardless of political systems, national leaders must earn their right to rule by ruling wisely. Because it is so rear to have benevolent and competent national leaders, term limits are necessary.
If democracy is what counts, term limit is not democratic but a manmade hindrance to democracy.
Democracy is to allow people to select and the majority prevails. If people do like to have a person as president for more than 2 terms, why not? If we do not allow the majority prevail, is this still democracy?
The German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer was a great man who made the German economic wonder possible. German rose from devastation after WWII to become an industrial power under his guidance. He also initiated the EU with Charles De Gaulle. He ruled more than two terms. But people voted him out after he was too old to be efficient. That is democracy!
If they had cut him off after two terms, we might not have a EU today.
As another example, Winston Churchill led British people to win WWII especially with his insistence of continuing fight and successful retreat from Dunkirk while most of his cabinet members proposed to surround at the time.
Right after the World War II’s first election, Winston Churchill was voted out by his people he led to victory as prime minister, that is democracy. I think people was worry that he might become too powerful to continue as prime minister.
Don’t underestimate the wisdom of the people.
True! This exactly means the problem is not the term limit. It is the political system.
Then, we can argue which one you prefer, Xi or Trump or Hillary or Merkel? These are leaders produced by the various systems.
You were asking why each dynasty or democratic nation could only last no more than 200 to 300 years. What is the fundamental reason behind this limited life span. Can any one explain?
Yes, there is a theory which I gave this chat group before and I reprinted this theory in the following.
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”
I think Xi wants to make sure his work is not undone by a successor after he leaves. In his Belt and Road plans, he has a grand vision to bring peace and prosperity to the world. I believe he will quit when success is assured. In theory, it is not good to upset the 2 term limit system already established as a meritocracy. But he may have the following difficulties:
1. With the 2 term limit, he becomes a lame duck in his second term. He may be ignored. The designated successor will get the attention.
2. He has stepped on many toes in his anti-corruption campaign. He may be in danger once he loses power.
3. He cannot choose the immediate successor to continue his policy. So far, we have not identified any obvious candidates for this job.
I do not believe Democracy necessarily produces better leaders. Governance of a country depends more on the quality of leaders. Lee Kuan Yew was a good leader in an authoritarian rule. Officially, he got the vote because he was loved by his people who would have voted him to stay on.
As you said ” I think Xi wants to make sure his work is not undone by a successor after he leaves.”
I hope this is his targeted goal. But I couldn’t locate any speech or article written by him or CCP to prove that is his believe?
鞠躬尽瘁死而后已.
This is just my conjecture. There is no formal declaration of his intent. He is a believer of Confucian culture. 鞠躬尽瘁死而后已 may indeed be his intent. He did not start Belt and Road Initiative for personal gain, not even for only China’s gain, but win-win for all. In many projects, China stands to lose to handle many road blocks politically and economically, in Africa, S America and elsewhere. Xi is at a historical juncture to make this happen. I see this grand project as China’s contribution to world peace and prosperity. The US spends 710 billion dollars military budget a year for destruction, China is spending only a fraction for construction.
I agree with you. Xi has been consistent in his behavior from a small clerk to the leader of the great China. Hong-Yee
Dear All:
Judging from what he has done so far, I think Xi will be one of those very few national leaders in China’s 5,000 years history, who are/were wholeheartedly for the good of people. In this case, not just Chinese but people all over the world who treat China as equals like Dr. Sun Yatsen said in his will from his death bed. Dr. Sun could be one of those very few. Unfortunately, he did not live very long. Another one might be 康熙大帝 who spent sixty hear as an emperor to build up China but he himself was said to live frugally. 汉武大帝 could be another one of those very few. However, he spent too much energy to fight wars against 匈奴 invaders. He established China as THE Country but his people were exhausted by long years of warfare. Of course, their sacrifices benefited Chinese people for thousands of years since.
George Tsao
Do you miss the great emperor 秦始皇：他建立文官制度，統一度量衡文字，建公路築長城，統一六國，中國才有不會分裂的二千年一大統。
WF
Dear Wei Fah:
Yes, I thought about him but his cruelty and its desire for longevity turned himself off. He did a lot good things, but it was until 汉武大帝 China was unquestionably established as The country. We ever since call ourselves 汉人。
George Tsao
In Chinatown, Chinese were called 唐人街 唐人。
漢武帝征匈奴差點命送異鄉。康熙大帝十大武功，勞民傷財與毛澤東的建國文革，功過都是三七分。
如何選擇非我們說了算。
In China, there is 汉人 or 汉族。 汉武大帝 firmly established the meaning of 汉, a great country, a great people.
No one will argue against the record that 秦始皇 made important contributions to China. However, in my mind, a great man or a great national leader needs to be 贤 and 能. Chinese say 选 贤 与 能。 秦始皇 能 yes but 贤 no, a big no. So, I did not select him to be one of the very few great leaders in Chinese history.
I think 十大武功 are those of 乾隆 but not his grandfather 康熙大帝. He had to eliminate 吴三桂 to firmly establish the central government. He united Taiwan using very little force. China, at that time, had huge areas in Siberia. He was both 贤 and 能.
乾隆 did very well in his younger days but in later years, he spent too much for personal pleasure. He ignored all the advances in science and technology in the European countries. Soon after he was gone, Opium War started and China went down hill fast. Same thing can be said about 唐玄宗。 He did very well in younger days but too much “song and dance” during his older years.
I almost did not include 汉武大帝 because he fought too many battles over several decades. However, during his later years, he wrote an article to blame himself for all the killings and death in what is called 罪己诏 showing the 贤 side of himself. He must have struggled in his mind between war against 匈奴or let Chinese people live in peace. He decided to get rid of 匈奴 for a long period of peace for Chinese people. The same thing can happen to Xi Jinping. He might one day have to decide war or peace.
You are right in saying that these things are not decided by you or me. I was just showing my preferences. 历史有其公道。
人在壯年及老年是不一樣的
這是人性，也是人生
誠如曹學長所提到歷史上兩位偉大的皇帝:乾隆、唐玄宗
「乾隆 did very well in his younger days but in later years, he spent too much for personal」
「唐玄宗did very well in younger days but too much “song and dance” during his older years. 」
兩位偉大的皇帝晚年都不偉大了⋯⋯
這也可能發生在習近平身上（及所有人身上）
真正偉大的、有智慧的領袖，會見好就收，會在最高峰的時候就交棒
真正偉大的、有智慧的領袖，是會在「時限內」培養有能力的接棒者之，讓偉業持續下去的
諸位：
“見好就收” 是个很有智慧的做法。这”好” 可有講究。是国家人民好？是个人好？是个人好 那未必正好国家人民也好 也最好或可能可更好。中国人有説 “功成名就”. 当功成之时 人也就跟着出名。但是 “名就” 可不一定就 “功成”了
一條一路是个大而久的计㓰 什么时候 是 “好” 而可 “收“ 呢? 中国有說 “千軍易找 一將难求”。有了个好领導就要 他多做。
同时要有个檢察机構。孙中山先生在效法西方的行政立法司法三权之外加上了檢察和考試。中国在考試方面已在各方面行之久矣。 最近加上了檢察。如能行之有效。就尽可除去只有兩期的限制 好在最少每五年要從新選举 也就是要交出成绩单一次。
曹祖宁
forum4chinese 