Ageing leaders: A common challenge for China and the US
While China and the US have different systems, the issue of ageing political leaders is common to both. The fact that the Chinese Communist Party’s way of implementing age limits does not apply at the very top makes the Chinese system much less stable than that in Western-style democracies, says academic Wen-Hsuan Tsai.
Looking back, the US presidential election of 2016 marked a pivotal shift towards “elder politics” in that country. Then, Donald Trump, aged 70, was elected the 45th president, and four years later, Trump was defeated by the 78-year-old Joe Biden, the oldest sitting president in US history.
In the 2024 election, Biden, now aged 81, was originally due to face his old rival, the 78-year-old Trump, but questions about his age and mental capacity caused Biden to step down in July as the Democratic candidate in favour of Vice-President Kamala Harris.
... before Xi Jinping abolished the two-term limit for the presidency in 2018, the PRC was less likely to have an excessively elderly leader than a democratic country like the US.
Avoiding an elderly leader in China
This kind of “gerontocracy” was a phenomenon that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) once tried its best to avoid. Officials enjoyed lifelong tenure under Mao Zedong (1949-76), resulting in an elderly top leadership. Mao, for example, died in office as chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee at the age of 82.
The social and political chaos of the Cultural Revolution had a lot to do with Mao’s age and deteriorating health, which forced him to rely on ultra-leftists like Jiang Qing, his fourth wife. Beginning in the 1980s, the party gradually dismantled the lifelong tenure system, especially for the top leaders, and established relatively explicit age norms. The consensus within the CCP was that leaders aged over 70 could not be elected for a first term as party general secretary, meaning that even if they served two terms (a total of ten years), they could not be in office beyond the age of 79.
Jiang Zemin was 76 years old when he stepped down as general secretary in 2002, and Hu Jintao was only 69 when he retired in 2012. In other words, during the period when Jiang and Hu were in power, and before Xi Jinping abolished the two-term limit for the presidency in 2018, the PRC was less likely to have an excessively elderly leader than a democratic country like the US.
A comparison of political systems
To understand this situation, we need to examine it from the perspective of the political systems of the PRC and democracies like the US. Leaders of democracies are elected, and candidates are not subject to an upper age limit. If the electorate considers a candidate to be too elderly and/or incapable, they will not be elected. But China, with no free elections, must use another method to limit the possibility of gerontocracy. That is why under Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, strict age limits were implemented.
The CCP used these age restrictions to prevent elderly officials from succeeding to the position of general secretary (the nearest equivalent to a president in China). Inevitably for China, this system was born out of political struggle rather than being the result of a transparent democratic process.
At the CCP’s 15th National Congress in 1997, 72-year-old Qiao Shi, who at the time was chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, emerged as a potential challenger of Jiang Zemin, so Jiang made sure that the party reached a consensus on the principle that no one over 70 could be elected for a first term as general secretary, thus putting an end to Qiao’s ambitions. But since this “age rule” was only a consensus, with no solid institutional foundation, it was always liable to be overturned.
... under Jiang and Hu, most of the candidates for leadership positions were aged between 55 and 70, an age bracket that combines maturity with a relative abundance of physical strength.
Advantages of the ‘age rule’
This consensus on the age of the general secretary during the tenures of Jiang Zenmin and Hu Jintao also affected the appointment and removal of other senior officials. For example, the upper age limit for membership of the Politburo is 68, and after a debate within the party in 2002, 68-year-old Li Ruihuan, chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), was forced to relinquish his Politburo membership.
The advantage of this system is that, in the absence of popular elections, it allows elderly candidates to be excluded from holding important national positions. Indeed, a general secretary or Politburo member needs to be relatively young and physically fit to handle state affairs.
In addition, the CCP’s personnel system involves step-by-step promotion, and if the party organisation is satisfied with their performance, lower-level officials will be promoted to the next level. This meant that under Jiang and Hu, most of the candidates for leadership positions were aged between 55 and 70, an age bracket that combines maturity with a relative abundance of physical strength.
In a democracy, most central and local leaders gain power through popular elections, so individuals without any political experience can potentially assume extremely important leadership positions. Donald Trump, for example, had been a successful entrepreneur, but he had no political experience before he was elected president.
In a democracy like the US, candidates for high office may not necessarily possess the skills necessary for running the country or even respect for the democratic system itself. This system also has the potential to produce quite elderly leaders, such as Joe Biden, and when an older individual assumes an important position, their physical health and mental capacity may be questioned.
In short, the fact that the CCP’s way of implementing age limits does not apply at the very top means that the Chinese system is much less stable than the Western-style democracies.
Disadvantages of the PRC’s system and some conclusions
That said, the CCP’s age limit system also has major shortcomings. One of the biggest problems is that it is not a hard-and-fast rule, but merely a consensus within the party. As mentioned above, the system emerged as the result of a struggle for power within the party, rather than being a genuine attempt to avoid a gerontocracy.
So when an ambitious leader like Xi Jinping came to power, it was easy for him to ignore the age limits and to continue to serve as general secretary for a third term. Since Xi is now 71, he could potentially continue in post until he is 80 years old, or even stay in power for life. After more than 70 years, it seems that the PRC has still not produced any clear norms governing succession that would impose any checks and balances on the supreme leader.
Democracies may have the potential to produce leaders who are unfit for office, but an electoral system has a powerful self-healing function, as voters can replace poorly performing chief executives at the next election. In addition, democratic systems have very clear norms governing the exercise of power, unlike Leninist regimes such as that of China. In short, the fact that the CCP’s way of implementing age limits does not apply at the very top means that the Chinese system is much less stable than the Western-style democracies.
