It took many people by surprise when Xinhua news agency on Sunday announced that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was planning to scrap the term limits for the nation’s president as part of personnel changes to be passed during the National People’s Congress’ annual two-week session, which begins on Monday.
It should not have been such a bombshell, although several China experts have said they thought Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) would have been more oblique in his efforts to hold on to the presidency for more than the two terms that have been the rule since 1982.
After all, Xi has spent the past five years ruthlessly eliminating any potential challenger under the guise of his campaign against corruption, crushing China’s human rights activists and the lawyers who have helped them, and demanding that the nation’s media pledge absolute loyalty to the CCP and its core leadership, which basically means Xi.
The announcement forced the CCP’s propaganda machine and China’s massive censor network into overdrive this week, proclaiming that the proposal had the overwhelming support of the public and that it did not mean that Xi was planning on staying in power forever, while trying to stamp out any criticism.
The rationale behind the move is that Xi might need more than the prescribed two terms to ensure that his goal of establishing China as a prosperous, modern nation by 2050 is achieved.
The safeguard, according to an article in the state-owned People’s Daily is that the CCP’s constitution stipulates that the party’s leaders cannot stay in office indefinitely and that they should retire if their health fails.
However, Xi’s efforts to retain control, to establish himself as the main arbiter of what is best for the party and the nation, actually undermine the institutionalism that has made the CCP’s brand of authoritarian rule more resilient where other Marxist-Leninist parties have crumpled.
Succession always becomes an issue with authoritarian regimes, communist or otherwise, unless family lineage becomes the rule, hence the reliance on coups to bring in new leadership. The problem only becomes more acute the longer a head of state stays in office, as several African nations and others can attest to.
The longer a leader is in office, the less likely they are to receive accurate information in times of economic or political crisis because no one wants to be the bearer of bad news, and the less likely people are to question their policies.
For Taiwan, Xi’s move is cause for concern because of the xenophobia that he has helped foment over the past five years as part of his mission to restore China to greatness, encapsulated in the “Xi Jinping Thought for the New Era of Socialism With Chinese Special Characteristics” that was written into the CCP’s constitution during the party’s National Congress in October last year.
This nationalism can be seen in the rabid response in the Chinese media, amid its netizens and among its students studying overseas, to any mention or recognition of Taiwan as a separate nation — just as they react to recognition of the Dalai Lama as either a religious or world leader.
It can also be seen in the more aggressive efforts to limit Taiwan’s interactions with other nations on the international stage, from blocking it even from observer status in organizations such as the WHO and the International Civil Aviation Organization, to luring its diplomatic allies to switch recognition to Beijing.
This nationalism, coupled with an ever-increasing military budget to expand the People’s Liberation Army’s hardware and technology, and the widespread ignorance in China about how democracies or other societies work, could make it harder for Xi to resist calls for forcible unification with Taiwan, especially if he is looking to ensure his legacy.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS