 |
| A model for party politicians all over the world? |
The American pundit Noah Smith does not think the coronation of Chairman Xi bodes well for China.
Rewarding loyalty over competence degrades the quality of top personnel. Eliminating competing factions robs decisions of needed criticism and consensus. And centralizing power in the hands of one man mean that that man’s mistakes become national failures.
Smith sees the rise of Xi Jinping as a tale of an incompetent head of government succeeding by his gifts for internal party politics. That reminds him of someone:
I see something a bit different [in Xi's ascendance] — a nostalgic Baby Boomer kicking against modernity and yearning for a semi-imagined past greatness. This reminds me a lot of Donald Trump — and like Xi, Trump is a guy who’s proven adept at bullying a political party to obey and worship him. In fact, my ability to see through Xi’s veneer of competence was really just pattern-matching — I recognized a certain type of strutting, nostalgic, domineering old guy.
Smith's an American and his analogies are American. But, looking around the parliamentary world, I cannot help but think of other leaders from whom ability to bambooze the party faithful does not (or will not) translate into policy ability or seriousness about good government.
Think of Boris Johnson. Think of Liz Truss. Or Danielle Smith. Pierre Poilievre? I guess quite a few Canadians would want to put Justin Trudeau on that list. Their parties pushed them upwards fast, but they have a very hard time getting rid of them, or even correcting them, when they fail.
Pick your own favourite cases, but around the world political parties' internal leadership processes have become essential support for autocratic incompetents everywhere.
