I mean overthrown by other party members, not by ordinary Chinese, of course.

  • 3
    Since when does "allowed" have anything to do with anything related to power struggles? Khruschyov was kicked out based on bureaucratic lawyering. Anti-Gorbatchyov's putsch used "health retirement" reasons. Where there's a will, there's a way.
    – user4012
    Mar 24 '15 at 20:48

I am not a specialist in Chinese politics, but the logic and Soviet analogy suggests that the party can directly depose only party officials like the General Secretary.

If one wants to fire a state official like the Chairman of the PRC (you called it President), then one has to make a vote in the legislature (in Chinese case, the National People's Congress), where the Communist party likely to have the majority or at least plurality (note though that in the Soviet Supreme Council since the 1970s the majority were non-party members).

And in Socialist type states the supreme legislature usually has huge powers, definitely enough to depose any state official including the Chairman, possibly even with simple majority.

No violation of constitution or court case against the Chairman is needed to depose him (like in the US), definitely.

  • In the US, while the president can only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors," the process is entirely in the legislature (they just basically act like they're a court), and the legislature gets to decide what's a high crime. When you way the Soviet supreme legislature has the power to depose the chairman without needing a court case, do you mean that the law explicitly allowed them to depose him as they saw fit, without having to pretend he did something awful (like is the case in the UK, where Parliament can just decide to kick out the PM)?
    – cpast
    Mar 25 '15 at 3:16
  • @cpast yes, just as any official, with simple majority, they did not need to have even 2/3 for it. In the USSR the head of state was the head of the legislature actually (Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council). They also could remove any state official like the chairman of the cabinet of ministers with simple majority. And the Supreme Council was so powerful that it could change anything in the country without anyone having veto power. They even could change the constitution without a referendum or consent of the head of state.
    – Anixx
    Mar 25 '15 at 3:46
  • 2
    @cpast You should understand that "soviet" in Russian means "council". So, the very state's name was "Union of Council Socialist Republics". And the regime was known as советская власть "council rule". During the Russian Revolution there was a Lenin's slogan "All power to the Councils!" google.com/#newwindow=1&q=all+power+to+the+councils . So there is nothing strange that Supreme Council could do anything.
    – Anixx
    Mar 25 '15 at 4:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .