Seems the trade-off in a monarchy (in the best case) is that you relieve the political pressure from the populace so they can focus on growth, with the downside being that once the sovereign dies, that bill comes due. Perhaps one can think of hereditary monarchy as an attempt at stable continuity. It balances the need for short-term stability (where the obvious solution is to hollow out the power of the 2nd-tier) against familial loyalty.
Of course, this wouldn't work here in the US; we're too fragmented. A monoculture appears to be a pre-req for this scheme to have any hope of "working".
Mankind should agree that in political positions people should be allowed to stay til 70 and then give it to younger ones. It is globally known that after 70, clear and concise thinking goes down (therefore you have to visit doctor for driving licence every 2 years).
Yes ofc, there are exceptions but they are 20 pct. Add long stay in politics surrounded by people willing to do anything (for themselves).
At 70 - become the wise elder adviser or something… should be an unwritten rule.
The reason why this happens with Xi in particular, but not the other chairmen between him and Deng:
After Mao, the CCP adopted the concept of collective leadership [1], which dispersed some power from the top guy to the politburo standing committee. Also they established term limits. Deng officially implemented this, perhaps partially due to his personal suffering during the cultural revolution. Of course he was still immensely powerful during his time and ran things behind the curtains for quite a while after he passed the chair. After him, the term limit and collective leadership took hold, and the top guys all retired long before they got too old.
This was of course reversed by Xi after he changed the constitution to abolish the term limit. Now the standing committee also becomes a group of his close followers. Previously, the successor would be brought up into the committee first for a term before he took power. Xi hasn't brought anyone who's much younger than him in.
Therefore we are back to the Mao days. Top guy got older and more frail. Became paranoid of younger, more competent prospects so he purged them. As a result, his circle was filled with supposed loyalists and yes-men, or as the kids these days say, scheming eunuchs. When he finally passed, a power struggle would happen and all the big players would probably not include the ones who were actually good at governing.
This is also why the "they think in centuries" praise from some China enthusiasts always amuses me. Preventing peaceful transfer of power is one of the most selfish and shortsighted thing a leader can do, and it almost never ends well. But I would get another term or two, right?
Trump is 80, Putin 74 and von der Leyen 68. You could argue that some of them won't rule after 10+ years, but considering their successors are also going to be old folk that's not reassuring.
Considering almost everyone else is sent to pension/old people home at that age it's funny we let them decide the destiny of humanity.
To put von der leyen in the same sentence as the other two says a lot more about you than anything else.
For one thing, she is much more likely to be 'ruling' in 10+ years being both female and only 68, and people are only sent to old peoples home when they can't look after themselves. Trump definitely meets that mark, Putin we obviously do not know. Pension for von der Leyen, maybe, but with age comes wisdom with her role, and stability.
It really seems to break some people's brains that China, a self-declared communist nation, is actually successful and the most probable contender to break American hegemony
Seems the trade-off in a monarchy (in the best case) is that you relieve the political pressure from the populace so they can focus on growth, with the downside being that once the sovereign dies, that bill comes due. Perhaps one can think of hereditary monarchy as an attempt at stable continuity. It balances the need for short-term stability (where the obvious solution is to hollow out the power of the 2nd-tier) against familial loyalty.
Of course, this wouldn't work here in the US; we're too fragmented. A monoculture appears to be a pre-req for this scheme to have any hope of "working".
Knight fight mentioned in the article.
Mankind should agree that in political positions people should be allowed to stay til 70 and then give it to younger ones. It is globally known that after 70, clear and concise thinking goes down (therefore you have to visit doctor for driving licence every 2 years).
Yes ofc, there are exceptions but they are 20 pct. Add long stay in politics surrounded by people willing to do anything (for themselves).
At 70 - become the wise elder adviser or something… should be an unwritten rule.
The reason why this happens with Xi in particular, but not the other chairmen between him and Deng:
After Mao, the CCP adopted the concept of collective leadership [1], which dispersed some power from the top guy to the politburo standing committee. Also they established term limits. Deng officially implemented this, perhaps partially due to his personal suffering during the cultural revolution. Of course he was still immensely powerful during his time and ran things behind the curtains for quite a while after he passed the chair. After him, the term limit and collective leadership took hold, and the top guys all retired long before they got too old.
This was of course reversed by Xi after he changed the constitution to abolish the term limit. Now the standing committee also becomes a group of his close followers. Previously, the successor would be brought up into the committee first for a term before he took power. Xi hasn't brought anyone who's much younger than him in.
Therefore we are back to the Mao days. Top guy got older and more frail. Became paranoid of younger, more competent prospects so he purged them. As a result, his circle was filled with supposed loyalists and yes-men, or as the kids these days say, scheming eunuchs. When he finally passed, a power struggle would happen and all the big players would probably not include the ones who were actually good at governing.
This is also why the "they think in centuries" praise from some China enthusiasts always amuses me. Preventing peaceful transfer of power is one of the most selfish and shortsighted thing a leader can do, and it almost never ends well. But I would get another term or two, right?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_leadership
Trump is 80, Putin 74 and von der Leyen 68. You could argue that some of them won't rule after 10+ years, but considering their successors are also going to be old folk that's not reassuring.
Considering almost everyone else is sent to pension/old people home at that age it's funny we let them decide the destiny of humanity.
To put von der leyen in the same sentence as the other two says a lot more about you than anything else.
For one thing, she is much more likely to be 'ruling' in 10+ years being both female and only 68, and people are only sent to old peoples home when they can't look after themselves. Trump definitely meets that mark, Putin we obviously do not know. Pension for von der Leyen, maybe, but with age comes wisdom with her role, and stability.
if you limit your arguments to include only people you dislike (or like), that says more about you than you realize.
Von der Leyen is not a "ruler" like Trump, Xi and Putin. There's no great power vacuum behind her.
She is at the helm of EU for 7 years, and afaik can be there indefinitely. This sounds very rulery to me.
I think vdL might be a case of a power vacuum with another power vacuum behind.
Xi is very young, he is not even 80!
When he turns senile, it will be global spectacle! We seen in last two elections cycles!
It really seems to break some people's brains that China, a self-declared communist nation, is actually successful and the most probable contender to break American hegemony