• Ratatouille
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    2 months ago

    what if you looked at the 4 entire years where he was president and kept the status quo perfectly intact

  • 小莱卡
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    this user has never read any xi jingping theory nor he knows his political trajectory lol

  • miz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 months ago

    Consider term limits. The US Constitution was amended to enforce term limits in direct response to FDR’s popular 12-year presidency (he died in office, going on for 16). As a policy, it is self-evidently quite anti-democratic (robbing the people of a choice), but nevertheless it has been conceptually naturalized to the extent that the 2019 coup against Evo Morales was premised explicitly on the idea that repeated popular electoral victories constituted a form of dictatorship. If rotation was important to avoid corruption or complacency, corporations and supreme courts would institute term limits too. Term limits ensure that in the miraculous scenario that a scrupulous, charismatic, and intelligent individual becomes a rebellious political executive, they won’t be in power long enough to meaningfully challenge the entrenched power of corporate vehicles manned by CEOs with decades of experience. Wolfgang Schäuble, a powerful advocate of austerity policy in Europe, succinctly summarized the extent to which electoral democracy is subordinate: “Elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy.” One Party States and Democratic Centralism are not the result of lack of sophistication or cronyism, they are a proven bulwark that acknowledges that political power will often need to be exerted against the will of Capital, and so the wielders of said power must necessarily undergo a much more serious vetting process than a popularity contest.

    from https://redsails.org/why-marxism/