No… Xi was a member of the CPC in his village since young, elections are taken place at different levels, from towns to municipalities and so on, until you get to the National People’s Congress where there members elect a president.
For the first level, the NPC elects the head of State and the heads of the judicial organs, i.e., the President of the State, the President of the Supreme People’s Court, the Procurator-General of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Director of the National Supervisory Commission, and, upon nomination by the President, decide on the leaders of the central administrative organs, namely, the Premier of the State Council. (Article 62 of the Constitution)
For the second level, the people’s congresses of provinces shall elect the heads of the administrative and judicial organs at the provincial level, namely, the governors of the provinces or municipalities directly under the Central Government, presidents of high people’s courts, chief procurators of the procuratorates at the provincial level and directors of the supervision committees at the same level. (Articles 8 and 44 of Local Organization Law)
For the third level, the municipal people’s congress shall elect the leaders of the municipal organs, institutions, and judicial organs, namely the mayor, presidents of intermediate people’s courts, chief procurators of the municipal procuratorate, and directors of the supervisory committee at the same level.
For the fourth level, the people’s congresses of districts and counties shall elect the responsible persons of administrative organs and judicial organs at the district/county level, namely, the heads of the district/county, presidents of primary people’s courts, chief procurators of procuratorates at the district/county level, and directors of supervisory committees at the same level.
For the fifth level, the people’s congress of townships and towns shall elect the heads of the administrative organs and institution at the same levels, namely, the heads of townships/towns. There are no judicial organs in towns and townships, only agencies dispatched by judicial organs at the district/county level.
I appreciate the source and will read it further. That being said, you didn’t address the somewhat recent removal of the 1990s second term limit rule. Without a limit the communist party will be unable to elect another leader to that office until Xi steps down or dies. As most see it, this would make him more in line with a dictator than an elected leader.
Democracy is broadly rule by the people. A leader for life without a mechanism for removal is one of many signs of a government that is not ruled by the people systemically. A benevolent dictator may rule in-line with the majority but should they not, the people have no ability to address it and make change at that level.
Further, no one has addressed the initial points made. Xi removed the ability for the people he rules over to hold him accountable. This is one of many indicators of an autocrat or one who is moving toward being an autocrat in full.
This was not a point on the mechanism of Democracy but rather Xi’s removal of the term limit he worked within. As it stands, the people of China have no systemic method to remove him should they overwhelmingly disagree with his policies and unless he steps down he’s in charge for life.
Just because you don’t know what terms mean doesn’t mean the person you’re interacting with is a troll. Socialist, especially in this context, has a lot more to do with the economic order. That’s why socialist democracy is not an oxymoron, nor is capitalist-autocracy for example. Dictator-democracy is not even similar, because you’re abutting two governmental structure systems, not one governmental structure system with one economic system. Dictator-democracy and Capitalist-Communism both don’t make sense as terms. Socialist democracy absolutely does.
If you want to argue the veracity of the claim that they were a socialist democracy or not, go for it. But as it is, you are the one trolling here, either purposefully or just inadvertently due to not understanding what you’re responding to and thus assuming the person you’re responding to is speaking nonsense.
Just because you don’t know what terms mean doesn’t mean the person you’re interacting with is a troll.
So you start your “rebuttal” with a slight insult, well well, you are right of course, if I do not know something doesn’t mean you are a troll (or the person I responded to) but check out his posts and come back and say you see no trolling.
It wasn’t an insult at all. Plenty of ways to phrase what I said as an insult, and I used none of them. I was pointing out that: (1) you didn’t seem to know what terms meant, and thus (2) were using that as reason to assume the other person is a troll.
I’m not defending the other person either, I just get annoyed when I see people assume everyone is trolling simply because they’re offering a contrasting opinion on something. If someone really is trolling, it shouldn’t be hard to point to why you think that. You also made up some fantasy in the latter part of your comment, putting words in the commenter’s mouth you responded to, which you obviously intended in a snide way by adding the “Looooool”:
The US absolutely has its own set of issues, but I’m still not clear why you are unable to address the initial points made in regards to Xi and China and have instead changed the discussion to US flaws.
So Xi didn’t make himself leader for life? And he doesn’t exert significant control over China’s government?
No… Xi was a member of the CPC in his village since young, elections are taken place at different levels, from towns to municipalities and so on, until you get to the National People’s Congress where there members elect a president.
He exerts as much power as any other president, or less, he can’t do whatever he wants, there are democratic processes involved to take decisions…
I appreciate the source and will read it further. That being said, you didn’t address the somewhat recent removal of the 1990s second term limit rule. Without a limit the communist party will be unable to elect another leader to that office until Xi steps down or dies. As most see it, this would make him more in line with a dictator than an elected leader.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276
Just to add, it’s not because a leader is elected that it is a democracy.
Democracy is broadly rule by the people. A leader for life without a mechanism for removal is one of many signs of a government that is not ruled by the people systemically. A benevolent dictator may rule in-line with the majority but should they not, the people have no ability to address it and make change at that level.
Further, no one has addressed the initial points made. Xi removed the ability for the people he rules over to hold him accountable. This is one of many indicators of an autocrat or one who is moving toward being an autocrat in full.
Democracy isn’t just elections. The URSS had elections and they were not democratic.
This was not a point on the mechanism of Democracy but rather Xi’s removal of the term limit he worked within. As it stands, the people of China have no systemic method to remove him should they overwhelmingly disagree with his policies and unless he steps down he’s in charge for life.
They weren’t a liberal democracy, which is different, they very much were a socialist democracy.
Okay so you really are a troll then lol.
A socialist democracy, what’s next, a dictator-democracy?
Wait, that’s your definition of China!
Looooool
Just because you don’t know what terms mean doesn’t mean the person you’re interacting with is a troll. Socialist, especially in this context, has a lot more to do with the economic order. That’s why socialist democracy is not an oxymoron, nor is capitalist-autocracy for example. Dictator-democracy is not even similar, because you’re abutting two governmental structure systems, not one governmental structure system with one economic system. Dictator-democracy and Capitalist-Communism both don’t make sense as terms. Socialist democracy absolutely does.
If you want to argue the veracity of the claim that they were a socialist democracy or not, go for it. But as it is, you are the one trolling here, either purposefully or just inadvertently due to not understanding what you’re responding to and thus assuming the person you’re responding to is speaking nonsense.
So you start your “rebuttal” with a slight insult, well well, you are right of course, if I do not know something doesn’t mean you are a troll (or the person I responded to) but check out his posts and come back and say you see no trolling.
It wasn’t an insult at all. Plenty of ways to phrase what I said as an insult, and I used none of them. I was pointing out that: (1) you didn’t seem to know what terms meant, and thus (2) were using that as reason to assume the other person is a troll.
I’m not defending the other person either, I just get annoyed when I see people assume everyone is trolling simply because they’re offering a contrasting opinion on something. If someone really is trolling, it shouldn’t be hard to point to why you think that. You also made up some fantasy in the latter part of your comment, putting words in the commenter’s mouth you responded to, which you obviously intended in a snide way by adding the “Looooool”:
He did say that the country of China, which is a dictatorship, is in fact a democracy.
It’s definitely better than what you have in the US, which whatever it is, it’s not a democracy.
The US absolutely has its own set of issues, but I’m still not clear why you are unable to address the initial points made in regards to Xi and China and have instead changed the discussion to US flaws.
I am not an American lol.