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.
Make it a written rule please, and legally binding.
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?
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.
There are also hard limits on what she can do as president. Brussels doesn't rule over the member states like Beijing rules over the provinces (Chinese + "acquired" ones). Most things need the backing of the Council (= the member states) + the member states can drag things out at home if they want to. The EU doesn't have anything like the US National Guard that can be used in member states to force them to comply (possibly against state laws and state constitutions).
The European Union is the consensus making cooperation machine many European countries have chosen to use and die Uschi is only in charge of one component of that machine.
Doesn't seem very rulery to me.
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.
When he turns senile, it will be global spectacle! We seen in last two elections cycles!
However the last 10 years I'm not impressed, even if I ignore the Uyghur genocide and hongkong political repression (and I don't). The number of millionaires in the Chinese parliament grew extremely fast. The CCP is older and while it never truly represented China, it is even less diverse than it used to be. The parliament is richer, older and more masculine than it ever was, and the politburo is even worse. The obvious issues from China's rural areas stayed ignored for years, and the only way the politburo addressed it was on a very limited way, through a genocide (not a violent one, so it is palatable to their intelligentsia, but still a genocide).
Still, I think the author is too hard on China. Xi and his government still have to have the parliament support, and it can be lost quickly. Xi's death won't suddenly make the 2.5k parliament member quits and take arms. Most of them are from the economic elites (farm/boat/factory owners), and wouldn't support any kind of local mayhem.
In this regard, China seems to be closer to Marx' vision of a communist society.
I predict that China will not achieve the communism that Marx had in mind neither. Why? Because I don't believe in predictions about radical changes in highly complex systems. You can make changes, but then you need to watch and see what actually happens instead of sticking with what some guy came up with in his room 150 years ago. Past performance of communism (so-called, but the only one that has ever existed) and current indicators (the autocrats like their power) are stronger predictors than what Marx wrote.
In a possible future if(!) and when AI can do all the work, we might need something like communism, or better extreme social democracy (democracy with massive redistribution), because the alternative is a an economic inequality that makes the Industrial Revolution times in the UK look like 70s Sweden.