It could be argued that one of the most important protocol difference between the USA, Russian and Chinese governmental systems is the duration of which a President can lead for.
In the USA, I believe it is for two terms, thus limiting the amount of time the government conforms to a presidential influence. In Russia and China there appears no limit other than the presidents mortality and will as to how long the relevant governments conform to his/her influence.
As witnessed over history when a dictator falls, dies or is other wise disposed of, the country he had been in control of tends to disintegrate. A good example would be the consequences of the death of the President of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito, who ruled Yugoslavia as President between 1953 until his death in 1980 (88).
The break up of the Yugoslavia was devastating yet entirely necessary as like most dictators Tito failed to allow for appropriate succession.
Given the situation in Ukraine currently it is easy to forget that the Russian president is indeed mortal and appears to have no specific nor published plan for succession however Russia today is much of Putin's (69) making and I wonder what will happen when he is no longer in control.
The same could be said for the leadership of Xi Jinping (68) whom exerts a tremendous influence on the Chinese systems of Government and people.
Perhaps we all can do with a reminder that Putin And Xi are both mortal and do have a limited life span and that the issue is about ongoing local and global stability when allowing one person to be so influential over such extended time and that person is no longer able to perform their duties.
Erdagon (67) of Turkey and a few others come to mind as well.
The USA on the other hand sacrifices a degree of political stability for fixed terms and thus is able to avoid being considered as a dictatorship. Perhaps a small degree of instability is better for stable continuation of a constitution devoted government over the longer term?
Ukraine:
I wonder if Putin has seriously considered what happens to Ukraine after he has destroyed most of it's infrastructure and housing. Has he considered the legacy he will leave for the Russian people after he leaves the leadership when the inevitable demand for reparations are made in the next 10-20 years or so or sooner and thus demonstrating the true cost of this futile Ukraine war to the Russian people he is supposedly serving.
Car to discuss?
In the USA, I believe it is for two terms, thus limiting the amount of time the government conforms to a presidential influence. In Russia and China there appears no limit other than the presidents mortality and will as to how long the relevant governments conform to his/her influence.
As witnessed over history when a dictator falls, dies or is other wise disposed of, the country he had been in control of tends to disintegrate. A good example would be the consequences of the death of the President of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito, who ruled Yugoslavia as President between 1953 until his death in 1980 (88).
The break up of the Yugoslavia was devastating yet entirely necessary as like most dictators Tito failed to allow for appropriate succession.
Given the situation in Ukraine currently it is easy to forget that the Russian president is indeed mortal and appears to have no specific nor published plan for succession however Russia today is much of Putin's (69) making and I wonder what will happen when he is no longer in control.
The same could be said for the leadership of Xi Jinping (68) whom exerts a tremendous influence on the Chinese systems of Government and people.
Perhaps we all can do with a reminder that Putin And Xi are both mortal and do have a limited life span and that the issue is about ongoing local and global stability when allowing one person to be so influential over such extended time and that person is no longer able to perform their duties.
Erdagon (67) of Turkey and a few others come to mind as well.
The USA on the other hand sacrifices a degree of political stability for fixed terms and thus is able to avoid being considered as a dictatorship. Perhaps a small degree of instability is better for stable continuation of a constitution devoted government over the longer term?
Ukraine:
I wonder if Putin has seriously considered what happens to Ukraine after he has destroyed most of it's infrastructure and housing. Has he considered the legacy he will leave for the Russian people after he leaves the leadership when the inevitable demand for reparations are made in the next 10-20 years or so or sooner and thus demonstrating the true cost of this futile Ukraine war to the Russian people he is supposedly serving.
Car to discuss?
