Xi wins indefinite term
▶ Fears that move towards one-man rule after voting by delegates will be a throwback to Mao dictatorship
Chinese President Xi Jinping pauses after casting his ballot at the National People’s Congress yesterday, where 3,000 delegates voted to abolish the two-term limit to his reign.
China’s National People’s Congress yesterday passed a constitutional amendment abolishing a presidential two-term limit and enabling President Xi Jinping to rule indefinitely.
The amendment ends a system enacted by former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1982 to avoid the bloodshed of a lifelong dictatorship as experienced with Mao Zedong’s 19661976 Cultural Revolution.
“This marks the biggest regression in China’s legal system since the reform and opening-up era of the 1980s,” said Zhang Lifan, an independent political commentator in Beijing. “I’m afraid that this will all be written into our history in the future.”
Voting among the nearly 3,000 hand-picked delegates of the congress began in the mid-afternoon, with Mr Xi leading the seven members of the Politburo Standing Committee in casting their votes.
He placed his orange ballot paper in a box bearing the official seal on the stage inside the hall.
Deputies then rose to vote on the floor of the hall as jaunty instrumental music played. Ten minutes later, the process ended and delegates were asked to return to their seats while the votes were counted.
Shortly after 3.50pm, the results were read out and flashed on a screen in the hall. The delegates voted 2,958 in favour, with two opposed, three abstaining and one vote invalidated. “The constitutional amendment item has passed,” the announcer declared to polite applause.
Mr Xi, 64, showed little emotion, remaining in his seat with other deputies to listen to a report on the work of the congress delivered by its departing chairman.
The move towards one-man rule under Mr Xi has fuelled concern that Beijing is eroding efforts to guard against the excesses of autocratic leadership and make economic regulation more stable and predictable.
The amendment also inserted Mr Xi’s personal political philosophy into the preamble of the constitution, which emphasises the leadership of the ruling Communist Party.
“It is rare nowadays to see a country with a constitution that emphasises the constitutional position of any one political party,” Mr Zhang said.
Government censors are aggressively scrubbing social media of expressions ranging from “I disagree” to “Xi Zedong”. Some prominent Chinese figures have publicly protested against the move, despite the risk of official retaliation.
The congress spokesman has said abolishing term limits is aimed only at bringing the office of the president in line with Mr Xi’s other positions as head of the Communist Party and the Central Military Commission, which do not impose term limits.
While some scholars questioned the wisdom of the move, others said they saw value in sending the message that Mr Xi would be setting policy for many years to come.
“In fact, the more Xi Jinping’s position is consolidated and the longer his governing time is to last, the more secure it is for the continuity of the policies,” said Prof Liu Jiangyong, of Renmin University’s School of International Relations.
Mr Xi has appointed himself to lead departments that oversee national security, finance, economic reform and other major initiatives, effectively sidelining the party’s No2 figure, Premier Li Keqiang.
Mr Xi’s confident, populist leadership style and tough attitude towards official corruption have won him a significant degree of popular support.
Zhao Minglin, 32, a vice president of an investment company in Beijing, said it was easier for Mr Xi to carry out his ambitious vision of raising living standards in China if more power were concentrated in his hands.
“I will definitely support this constitutional amendment and this government. This is a powerful and strong government,” Mr Zhao said.
The decision by Chinese lawmakers to abolish the two-term presidential limit, paving the way for Xi Jinping to rule indefinitely, is of little surprise. So too is the near unanimity with which the decision passed through the National People’s Congress. Just two of the nearly 3,000 delegates voted against the change, with three abstentions and one spoilt ballot. Those expressing genuine surprise cannot have not been closely following Chinese politics; at the Communist Party Congress last October, Mr Xi deviated from tradition when he failed to name a successor, before the party voted to enshrine his name and ideology in the constitution. He now sits on equal footing with Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping in the hierarchy of Chinese leaders. Despite the backlash yesterday’s decision has caused, it has been a long time coming.
It will not spark the crisis some have predicted. While the twoterm rule is less than two decades old, it is the general secretary of the Communist Party, not the president, who dominates Chinese politics, setting policy and controlling the military. That position, which has no term limits, is already held by Mr Xi, who is simply aligning the presidency with his party responsibilities. Nor does it necessarily mean that he will rule into his old age, despite the fact that critics in China and elsewhere suggest the move sets a dangerous precedent.
It does, however, afford modern leadership’s most precious commodity to Mr Xi: time. But leadership is strenuous, and particularly so in a nation as vast and powerful as China. There are numerous examples – particularly in Africa, where China is ramping up its economic interests – of leaders who over-extended their tenures and fossilised in power. Mr Xi certainly has plenty on his agenda. He is pursuing the One Belt, One Road initiative, a colossal trading network marking the next stage of China’s growth story. He is closely monitoring the neighbouring tinderbox of North Korea. Elsewhere, Mr Xi is asserting Beijing’s territorial claims in the South China Sea, readying for a potential Sino-US trade war and supervising an anti-corruption drive that has already punished a million party members. At a time of such flux, a vote for continuity is perhaps not the worst thing.