(two versions of same prompt, chatgpt and gemini versions, i forget which is which) (sometimes i do this if i think the topics especially important)

Both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping followed similar paths of centralizing power, though the legal mechanics and historical “why” behind their transitions differ. Both leaders essentially dismantled systems that were originally designed to prevent a return to the “one-man rule” of the Soviet and Maoist eras.

---

1. Vladimir Putin (Russia)

In Russia, the post-Soviet 1993 Constitution limited presidents to two consecutive four-year terms.

The “How”:

• The Switch (2008): After serving two terms (2000–2008), Putin could not run again immediately. He became Prime Minister while his protégé, Dmitry Medvedev, became President. During this time, the term length was extended from 4 to 6 years.
• The Return (2012): Putin returned to the presidency for two 6-year terms.
• The “Reset” (2020): Facing a final exit in 2024, Putin backed a constitutional amendment that “zeroed out” his previous terms. This allowed him to run again in 2024 and potentially in 2030, effectively allowing him to stay in power until 2036.

The “Why”:

The Russian narrative emphasizes stability and sovereignty. Putin argues that Russia is too fragile for frequent leadership changes and that a strong, central figure is needed to resist “Western interference” and maintain internal order.

---

2. Xi Jinping (China)

After the chaos of Mao Zedong’s lifelong rule, Deng Xiaoping introduced a system in the 1980s that included a two-term limit for the presidency to ensure “collective leadership.”

The “How”:

• The Amendment (2018): China’s National People’s Congress voted almost unanimously to abolish the two-term limit on the presidency.
• The Alignment Theory: Xi argued that since his other two (and more powerful) titles—General Secretary of the Communist Party and Chairman of the Military Commission—had no term limits, the presidency should be changed to match them for the sake of “administrative unity.”
• Third Term (2023): Xi was officially granted an unprecedented third term, making him the leader for life in all but name.

The “Why”:

The CCP frames this as necessary for the “Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation.” The logic is that China’s ambitious long-term goals (like becoming the world’s leading superpower) require a singular, uninterrupted vision that a rotating leadership might disrupt.

---

3. Was there a U.S. Victory?

There wasn’t a “victory” in the sense of a treaty or a battle, but rather a perceived ideological victory at the end of the Cold War (often called “The End of History”).

• The 1990s Context: After the Soviet Union collapsed, the U.S. and the West believed that liberal democracy and term limits were the “final” form of government that Russia and China would eventually fully adopt.
• The Disregard: Putin and Xi both viewed the 1990s not as a period of “liberation,” but as a period of weakness and humiliation caused by Western-style reforms.
• The Rejection: Their move toward life-terms is a direct rejection of that 1990s “victory.” They essentially decided that Western democratic models were a “trap” designed to keep their countries unstable and subservient to U.S. interests.

---

Summary Table

Leader	Original Limit	Current Status	Method of Change
Putin	2 consecutive terms	Potentially until 2036	Constitutional “reset” of term counts
Xi	2 terms total	Indefinite	Total abolition of presidential term limits

Would you like me to look into how these changes affected their respective countries’ economies or their relationships with the U.S. during those specific years?

Short version: it wasn’t a sudden flip from “U.S. wins, democracy installed” to “oops, lifetime rulers.” It was a slow, legal-looking slide where term limits existed on paper, then were bent, reset, or hollowed out once power was consolidated. And yes—there was a period where it genuinely looked like liberal democracy had won.

Let’s break it down cleanly.

---

The big backdrop: the 1990s “democracy moment”

After the Cold War, there was a widespread belief (especially in the U.S. and Europe) that history had a direction:

• markets + elections → liberal democracy → peaceful integration
• this idea was sometimes called “the end of history”

Russia and China both partially adopted democratic-looking rules during this period:

• constitutions
• term limits
• elections

But the institutions underneath (courts, free media, independent parties) were weak or missing.

So the term limits were real—but fragile.

---

Russia / Putin: how 2 terms became “forever”

1. The original rule

• 1993 Russian Constitution (post-Soviet):

  • President limited to 2 consecutive 4-year terms

• This was broadly modeled on Western constitutional norms.

2. Putin plays by the rules… at first

• President:

  • 2000–2004
  • 2004–2008 → Hits the term limit

This is the moment when many Western observers thought:

“Okay, Russia is flawed, but the rules seem to matter.”

3. The Medvedev maneuver (2008–2012)

Putin doesn’t abolish term limits. Instead:

• He becomes Prime Minister
• His ally Dmitry Medvedev becomes President
• Everyone knows Putin is still in charge

Meanwhile:

• The presidential term is quietly extended from 4 to 6 years

This is key: the rule wasn’t broken—it was re-engineered.

4. Resetting the clock (2012–2020)

• Putin returns as President in 2012

• Then in 2020, the constitution is amended again:

  • Putin’s previous terms are declared not to count

Result:

• He can legally stay in power until 2036
• At that point, he’d be in his 80s

So Russia didn’t move from democracy → dictatorship overnight. It moved:

elections → managed elections → constitutional tricks → personalized rule

---

China / Xi Jinping: a different path, same destination

1. China did have term limits

After Mao, the Communist Party was terrified of another lifetime ruler.

So Deng Xiaoping engineered reforms:

• 2 five-year terms for top leaders
• Collective leadership
• Mandatory retirement ages

These rules worked surprisingly well—for 30+ years.

2. Xi rises inside the system

• Xi becomes General Secretary in 2012
• Initially seen as a consensus, boring, “safe” pick

Then:

• Massive anti-corruption campaign
• Which also conveniently removes rivals

3. Term limits removed (2018)

• China amends its constitution
• Presidential term limits are deleted entirely

Important detail:

• The real power in China is the Communist Party, not the presidency
• Xi had already centralized control there

So by the time the limits vanished:

the checks were already gone

---

Was this a “U.S. victory” that got reversed?

Sort of—but not in the way it’s often framed.

What the U.S. actually “won”

• The Cold War ended
• Communism as a global revolutionary ideology collapsed
• Russia and China integrated economically into the global system

What didn’t happen

• Strong democratic institutions never fully took root
• Rule of law stayed weaker than executive power
• Elites learned they could use democracy’s forms without its substance

So rather than:

Democracy → authoritarianism

It was more:

Weak democracy → elite capture → authoritarian consolidation

---

The key pattern (this matters)

Neither Putin nor Xi:

• canceled elections immediately
• declared themselves dictators
• staged classic coups

They:

• used legality
• used fear of chaos
• used nationalism
• used “stability” as the selling point

By the time term limits vanished, opposition was already neutralized.

---

One last important takeaway

Term limits only work if:

• courts are independent
• media is free
• opposition can organize
• elites believe they’ll be safe after leaving office

When leaders fear:

“If I step down, I’m exposed”

they don’t step down.

---

If you want, I can:

• compare this to Hungary, Turkey, or Venezuela
• explain why term limits survived in some countries but not others
• or dig into whether the U.S. itself is more fragile here than people assume

Just say the word.