Xi's 'death watch' will become a global spectacle

throw830373

Xi is very young, he is not even 80! When he turns senile, it will be global spectacle! We seen in last two elections cycles!

throwfaraway135

Trump is 80, Putin 74 and von der Leyen 68. You could argue that some of them won't rule after 10+ years, but considering their successors are also going to be old folk that's not reassuring. Considering almost everyone else is sent to pension/old people home at that age it's funny we let them decide the destiny of humanity.

TwoFerMaggie

The reason why this happens with Xi in particular, but not the other chairmen between him and Deng: After Mao, the CCP adopted the concept of collective leadership [1], which dispersed some power from the top guy to the politburo standing committee. Also they established term limits. Deng officially implemented this, perhaps partially due to his personal suffering during the cultural revolution. Of course he was still immensely powerful during his time and ran things behind the curtains for quite a while after he passed the chair. After him, the term limit and collective leadership took hold, and the top guys all retired long before they got too old. This was of course reversed by Xi after he changed the constitution to abolish the term limit. Now the standing committee also becomes a group of his close followers. Previously, the successor would be brought up into the committee first for a term before he took power. Xi hasn't brought anyone who's much younger than him in. Therefore we are back to the Mao days. Top guy got older and more frail. Became paranoid of younger, more competent prospects so he purged them. As a result, his circle was filled with supposed loyalists and yes-men, or as the kids these days say, scheming eunuchs. When he finally passed, a power struggle would happen and all the big players would probably not include the ones who were actually good at governing. This is also why the "they think in centuries" praise from some China enthusiasts always amuses me. Preventing peaceful transfer of power is one of the most selfish and shortsighted thing a leader can do, and it almost never ends well. But I would get another term or two, right? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_leadership

plastic-enjoyer

It really seems to break some people's brains that China, a self-declared communist nation, is actually successful and the most probable contender to break American hegemony

sixtyj

Knight fight mentioned in the article. Mankind should agree that in political positions people should be allowed to stay til 70 and then give it to younger ones. It is globally known that after 70, clear and concise thinking goes down (therefore you have to visit doctor for driving licence every 2 years). Yes ofc, there are exceptions but they are 20 pct. Add long stay in politics surrounded by people willing to do anything (for themselves). At 70 - become the wise elder adviser or something… should be an unwritten rule.

orwin

Hopefully not. Xi could have been as good for China as Deng Xiaoping was. After his elections, he ousted the military out of the CCP parliament, and despite what our media said, it was a good thing for the world stability (and also why the 'china will invade Taiwan' discourse to me was a sign of a simple mind). However the last 10 years I'm not impressed, even if I ignore the Uyghur genocide and hongkong political repression (and I don't). The number of millionaires in the Chinese parliament grew extremely fast. The CCP is older and while it never truly represented China, it is even less diverse than it used to be. The parliament is richer, older and more masculine than it ever was, and the politburo is even worse. The obvious issues from China's rural areas stayed ignored for years, and the only way the politburo addressed it was on a very limited way, through a genocide (not a violent one, so it is palatable to their intelligentsia, but still a genocide). Still, I think the author is too hard on China. Xi and his government still have to have the parliament support, and it can be lost quickly. Xi's death won't suddenly make the 2.5k parliament member quits and take arms. Most of them are from the economic elites (farm/boat/factory owners), and wouldn't support any kind of local mayhem.