Photo: EPA
CWCP's Dr. Yohanes Sulaiman and Dr. Brad Nelson offer their
reactions to the the news that China plans to eliminate presidential
term-limits.
Yohanes Sulaiman: This is an interesting development in
China, showing how much Xi Jinping has managed to completely consolidate power
in his hands. Even though previous leaders tried to bypass the rule and rule
behind the shadow (e.g. Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin), they were only
successful to a limited degree. And once they transitioned out of power, their
successors quickly consolidated their own rule, which limited their continuing
grip on political power in China. Here, Xi managed to break the rule that was
imposed after the death of Mao and the fall of Gang of Four, to prevent another
Mao from emerging.
What are the implications? In the short term, none whatsoever.
China will continue on its present political path. It will keep increasing its
power, pushing the envelope, etc., though I don't see Beijing attempting to
change the status quo. Why? Because (1) China is not ready yet to do so, and
(2) China still has a host of domestic problems, notably economic problems,
such as overproduction/overcapacity, internal fears of an economic slowdown,
and economic malfeasance (e.g. state's seizure of Anbang Insurance). The fact
that money is moving out of China so rapidly that the state has to crack down
on it should give one pause. I am not saying that China will collapse anytime
soon - far from it. But this just shows how unstable China's condition is
currently is, making it difficult for them to challenge the status quo.
In the long run, though, this may be a problem. Long-term
rulers pursue policies that will allow them to stay in power, but at the
expense of the nation. Decision-making processes become atrophied, as
institutions lack new blood that could give fresh insight and perspectives. In
such situations, leaders often pick bad policies, and that causes long-term
problems.
Brad Nelson: My first reaction is to think about how this
news impacts US-China relations. China is, in my view, a regional revisionist
power. It's already doing things to upset the regional status quo. I've made
precisely that point here. The "cabbage" and "salami
slicing" efforts in the South China Seas and China's OBOR are but two
prominent initiatives of a host of examples we can point to as evidence of
China currently creating a new regional order, limiting America's role and
movement in Asia, and binding other regional states to China's nascent
"Asia for Asians" order. That will now certainly continue.
What seems most assured is that China, for the foreseeable
future, will continue to press its political, economic, and security interests
outward. Xi's vision of a globally powerful and respected China necessarily
requires the Red Panda to flex its muscles. As a result, then, this picture of
an assertive, possibly more hostile, China isn't just a temporary blip or
something that can be wished away; it's a fact of international politics, one
that has ripple effects worldwide. One of which is that there's an increasing
likelihood of the US and China butting heads in the future on a host of issues,
in Asia and worldwide. While I'm not so sure I buy into Graham Allison's work
on the Thucydides Trap, especially as it relates to Sino-US relations in the
21st century, Xi's long-term presence in China does further intensify the
dynamics that underpin a potential costly, destructive power transition in
Asia. Given all of the above, this story does have the potential to be the
defining event in world affairs in 2018, and even beyond.
BN: I'm curious about your take on the weakness/strength of
Xi politically. As you know, that's a big debate that's emerged--whether
scrapping the term-limits means Xi is riding high and confident or feeling
vulnerable and actually weak. Your thoughts?
YS: One thing for sure is that Xi's power in the Communist
Party is unprecedented in post-Mao China. As powerful as Deng was back in the
1980s, he still had to deal with divergent factions, ranging from the moderates
(e.g. Zhao Ziyang) to conservatives (e.g. Li Peng). Similarly, Jiang Zemin was
hemmed by different factions. Hu Jintao ruled by consensus. Xi Jinping has been
more successful in reducing the domestic constraints on his rule, namely
through his anti-corruption drive. At this point, there is no strong political
bloc left in China that can effectively challenge Xi Jinping.
There are several ways to see why the Xi-controlled
Communist Party decided to scrap the term-limit.
1. The official explanation says there is really a genuine
internal fear of the United States, and so to further cement China's rise to
power, Beijing needs a steady hand on the helm. I don't buy it, however.
Changes in the leadership ranks may cause some distraction and turmoil in the
short-term, but that is offset by the long-term benefits. Promotions and
turnover in power allows for fresh ways of thinking (which reduces ideological
and policy rigidity and staleness) and generational change, which always quells
discontent within any type of government -- including an authoritarian one.
2. Xi is so powerful that he can dictate whatever he wants.
That is probably the most common explanation, though it oversimplifies the
situation. We have to look at China's current economic condition, which while
very impressive from the outside, is marked with mounting debt and economic
mismanagement, not to mention a very high overcapacity problem. In fact, one
may argue that China's "Belt and Road Initiative" is actually more of
an attempt of China to export its overcapacity elsewhere (dumping). Frankly,
should the economy collapse, whether sooner or later, whomever holds power at
that time will be blamed for this, and this factor might be what drove Xi's
policy.
What does that mean? We could see that this term-limits
debate is his warning, that basically he is going nowhere, so everyone better
stick with the economic reforms. Or perhaps Xi simply wants to remain in power
even as the economy slows down. At this point, it is really difficult to find
any reliable analysis on the current power struggle in the Party. While I tend
to stick with the former argument, I do believe it also reflects some
desperation on Xi's part.
No comments:
Post a Comment