Robin Williams delivered the line in the 2006 film Man of the Year. Nearly two decades later, it offers an unexpectedly useful way to examine Xi Jinping’s China, where political continuity has increasingly come to mean the continuity of one leader.
There is a joke, delivered by Robin Williams in the film Man of the Year, that politicians are a lot like diapers: they should be changed frequently, and for the same reason. It is a crude observation, but one with a surprisingly serious political message. No political system can remain healthy if leadership becomes permanent, renewal is discouraged and the future of an entire country is tied too closely to the person occupying its highest office.
China offers an interesting case study. Under Xi Jinping, the Communist Party continues to invoke the language of revolution, collective responsibility and national rejuvenation. Yet the country's political structure has moved towards a greater concentration of authority around one leader. The Chinese Dream promises national greatness, economic development and stability, but the question of who comes next has become increasingly difficult to answer.
There is an unexpected historical contrast here. Mao Zedong, the founder of the People's Republic, understood that leadership groups could not remain unchanged indefinitely. In his 1943 text Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership, Mao wrote that the composition of a leading group, in most cases, "should not and cannot remain entirely unchanged" throughout the different stages of a struggle. Activists who emerged through that struggle, he argued, had to be promoted to replace members who had become less effective or had degenerated. He also urged older cadres to welcome new ones.
Of course, Mao was not advocating democratic elections, political pluralism or the peaceful rotation of power between competing parties. He was discussing the renewal of leadership within the Communist Party itself. His system remained authoritarian, and his own rule was hardly an example of regular leadership turnover. But the principle he articulated is still revealing: even a revolutionary party, in Mao's formulation, needed new people to move forward. Leadership could not simply become a closed circle.
Xi's political trajectory has raised a different set of questions. In 2018, China's National People's Congress removed the constitutional two-term limit for the state presidency. Four years later, Xi secured a third term as Communist Party general secretary, while the top leadership was filled with figures regarded as loyal to him. This is important, because the presidency is a state office, while the Party general secretary is the country's most consequential political position. The Party's own rules did not impose the same presidential term limit on that position. Nevertheless, the removal of the presidential limit weakened an institutional safeguard that had been part of China's post-Mao political arrangements.
This is not merely a question of how long one individual remains in office. It concerns the political system's ability to prepare for a future beyond that individual. The post-Mao leadership had gradually developed conventions intended to make succession more orderly, reduce the concentration of power and prevent another period of politics dominated by a single personality. Those conventions were never equivalent to Western democratic institutions, but they did provide a framework for leadership transition. Analysts Richard McGregor and Jude Blanchette have argued that Xi's concentration of authority has weakened those arrangements and made the eventual succession more uncertain.
The political model Xi has built also reflects the economic transformation described by legal scholar Teemu Ruskola. China's extraordinary development since 1978 has brought market forces, private enterprise and consumer aspirations into a society still governed by a one-party state. The Communist Party did not surrender political control to the market; instead, it learned to deploy market mechanisms in support of its own priorities. The result is an unusual combination of state authority, capitalist production and nationalist ambition.
That transformation has lifted living standards for hundreds of millions of people, but it has also created profound inequalities and a huge workforce whose interests do not automatically translate into political representation. Migrant workers, rural communities and industrial labourers have helped build the Chinese economic miracle, yet independent organisation and political expression remain tightly constrained. The Party continues to speak in the name of workers and the people, while the practical space for those groups to organise independently remains limited.
This is where the Chinese Dream becomes central to Xi's political project. Mao's language was built around revolution, class struggle and the promise of a socialist future. Xi's language places national rejuvenation, strength, stability and China's return to global prominence at the centre. The collective promise has not disappeared, but its emphasis has shifted. Citizens are asked to identify their personal future with the fortunes of the nation, while the Party retains the authority to define what that national future should look like.
Ruskola's analysis points to a political bargain underpinning this arrangement: continued economic development and social stability in exchange for the public's acceptance of the Party's political monopoly. This is often described as performance legitimacy. The government is expected to deliver prosperity, order and national strength. But such a bargain carries risks. Economic growth cannot be guaranteed indefinitely, inequality does not disappear through patriotic slogans, and stability becomes harder to maintain when people have limited channels through which to express dissatisfaction or demand accountability.
There is also a contradiction in making the country's future so closely dependent on the continuity of one leader. A political system that emphasises long-term planning should be able to explain how leadership changes without destabilising the state. If succession becomes uncertain, the very stability that the Party presents as one of its principal achievements may become more difficult to protect. The question is not whether Xi should be replaced according to an external political model, but whether China's own institutions can demonstrate that they are capable of renewal.
Mao, for all the authoritarianism and upheaval associated with his rule, recognised that a leading group had to be refreshed as circumstances changed. Xi's China has placed much greater emphasis on the consolidation of authority at the top. The two men belong to very different historical periods, and their political systems should not be treated as interchangeable. Yet the contrast raises a question that the Chinese Communist Party cannot avoid: if the Party claims to represent the future, where is the next generation of leadership being prepared?
Robin Williams gave us the punchline. Mao, in his own very different political language, supplied a reminder that leadership groups cannot remain frozen in time. Neither observation is a blueprint for democracy. But both point towards a basic problem of political life: institutions need renewal, leaders need successors, and no country should have to confuse the future of its political system with the continued presence of one individual.
After all, even the most powerful political establishment eventually has to face the question of what comes next.
PS. The same question of political renewal applies, in a very different institutional setting, to the Democratic Party in the United States. A democratic party cannot ask voters to embrace change while appearing unwilling to renew its own leadership. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, like every other political leader, should be judged not by how long they have occupied positions of authority, but by whether the party's leadership reflects the political energy, priorities and expectations of the people it seeks to represent. A new generation of Democrats must have room to emerge, challenge established assumptions and bring fresh ideas into Congress. Experience has value, but seniority alone is not a political programme, and leadership positions should never become permanent possessions. The difference between a democracy and a one-party state is fundamental: Democrats have the opportunity to renew their leadership through open debate, elections and the will of their voters. They should not need a political crisis to remind them that renewal is part of democratic life. Robin Williams had the punchline. The voters have the final word.
No comments:
Post a Comment