https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/australasia/article/3224969/new-zealand-pm-chris-hipkins-disagrees-biden-says-xi-jinping-not-dictator
Hipkins, who is heading to Beijing this week, said he doesn’t believe the Chinese leader was a dictator.
There's already some downvotes on comments criticizing this statement.
Can someone with an opinion that Xi Jinping is NOT a dictator please weigh in on what that's about?
Please, also argue with the following definition in mind or supplement your own so that I know what exactly we're all defining that as
From Dictionary.com
noun a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession
From Merriam Webster
dictator noun dic·ta·tor ˈdik-ˌtā-tər dik-ˈtā- Synonyms of dictator 1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power especially, history : one appointed by the senate (see SENATE sense 1b) of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited governmental power c : one ruling in an absolute (see ABSOLUTE sense 2) and often oppressive way (fascist dictators)
From my understanding, after the events of 1980s in China (see Tiananmen Square, fall of Mao, communist party appointment, market reform) that there would be an election instead and each president would serve 5 years with the option to renew once to serve a total of 10 years. In 2013 they allowed that rule to be lifted to allow Xi Jinping to 'rule for life'. Isn't that absolute power held at the top of a government body being never-ending pretty much exactly what a dictator would be?
I'm pretty sure it just doesn't suit New Zealand right now to call him a dictator, especially with a visit coming up in a week. Australia and New Zealand have to occupy a precarious position because they are European/Western in nature but obviously closest to the Asian powers. Therefore they have to try and be besties with the US whilst staying ok with China.
'rule for life'
You and your red scare. All he did was remove the term limit "up to 2", with the party's consent, but he still has to be re-elected after every term. I also don't understand what so "dictator" about it, you had Merkel "in power" for way more than 10 years. Maybe it is useful to keep the most qualified guy with already having 10 years of experience in that position for longer than just 2011-2021, and let him continue when the country experienced the largest economic growth in their history?
Also, to me it seems that you think if you change your politicians every 8 years without any difference but the lobby stays for eternity, makes it suddenly a democratic state and totally not a dictatorship?
You keep your definition, but I don't see how being able to be re-elected more than 1 time is making you "ruling in absolute unlimited never-ending complete autocratic unrestricted autocratic oppressive fascist (ah have I mentioned absolute already?) power" (just put in more into the word salad and you start to sound smart).
This is what bothers me the most. China has genuine problems, but all people are doing is putting up strawmen and attacking them. It makes conversation impossible and no one can see what China is actually doing. And in some ways that's far more dangerous.
This is what bothers me the most. China has genuine problems, but all people are doing is putting up strawmen and attacking them. It makes conversation impossible and no one can see what China is actually doing. And in some ways that’s far more dangerous.
This. Hard agree. How can we ever talk about China genuinely if all we do is calling their policies with strawmen and can't actually discuss what their society and politics is about
Xi being called a dictator is what "bothers you the most"?
What are you, some Xi bootlicker?
There are so many things to be "bothered" about and you chose a (for you a wrongfully applied) label.
Smh
If it sounds vague to you, that's my point. Everyone knows so little about how China actually works that they can't fathom anything besides the strawmen that they put up. Here's a simple question. Xi has to be voted on every 5 years. Who is doing the voting here? I can tell you right now it's not the general population.
At this point is it even correct to call criticism of Beijing to be "red scare"?
The so-called "Communist Party of China" has a lot of billionaires in it's membership.
There seems to be a lot of capitalism going on in the "People's Republic of China" these days.
Labour Unions are illegal in China.
Given all the allegations of sexual assault levied the leadership and how that's handled, I think it's fair to characterize them as misogynistic.
China regularly uses a narrative about righting the wrongs from past national humiliations in it's propaganda.
When you actually describe the government of China these days does it actually sound Communist? Or does it sound like some other form of authoritarian government? Fascism, maybe?
Of course that's ridiculous. Fascists would never call themselves socialist. They're always super honest about things like that, aren't they? The National Socialist Party of Germany must have actually been socialist, because no fascist ever makes false claim about being socialist.
I agree, these points fully describe China - Republic of China & their DPP in Taiwan. Every point hits the nail on the head lmao
Yeah I hate that whole left/right political spectrum thing. It's a construct that may sometimes be useful as quick shorthand to describe moderate politics. But it's just a construct and doesn't really apply to authoritarian extremists.
People feel like it's impossible for a government to go from the "far left" to the "far right" without there being a revolution of some sort. So they fail to recognize that China could be fascist. Because that spectrum makes them think that's not possible.
But if you remove the labels and symbols, the Beijing regime is very obviously fascist.
Bruh of course the PRC is not fascist (if this word has any meaning nowadays) - they removed them 70 years ago, however ironically the ROC fits your description
I mean, the only part I wrote was the question, and then the bit at the bottom where I draw parallel. If you don't like the definitions, they're copy and pasted from those sources, so feel free to write and tell them how you feel on it.
I also think Merkel needed removed sooner, and I definitely don't believe the current system of government in the US is benefiting them at this time.
I was asking a question, you're the one drawing inferences. But I do appreciate that you answered the question and gave examples.
With your answer in mind, would you really say that lifting the term limits by a government that has ACTIVELY put down dissent as well as blocked and criminalized images of said politician being compared to a children's book character is actually democratic?
I think the problem you're having here is that not being democratic doesn't mean being a dictator. There are many forms of government that have existed before and will exist in the future. It'd be good if we took the time to understand at a minimum that.
In science, we come up with concepts and then name them (ball hits wall = force). We then find other phenomena that match those definitions using objective criteria (does car hit pole = force? yes, so it's force).
In politics, we come up with terms and associate feelings to them through classical conditioning (dictator = bad, dictator = bad,...). We then find phenomena that affects us in beneficial or harmful ways (Chinese leader is good for New Zealand economy), then label them based on how we want others to feel about it (China leader ≠ dictator/bad).
That's way too respectful for poo the bear who loves holding minorities in detention camps.
The USA once again losing international prestige. As if bombing the Nord Stream wasn't enough.