The recent downfall of Miao Hua, a close associate of Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping and the Director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission, has prompted the military to emphasize “collective leadership” over a “one-man show.” The move is seen as a shift away from the centralized authority of the Chairman of the Military Commission, focusing instead on a system where responsibilities are divided among leaders. Experts suggest that this shift may indicate power struggles within the party or health issues affecting Xi’s authority in the military.
On December 9, the PLA Daily published a commentary titled “Lead by Upholding Collective Leadership,” highlighting the importance of this principle as a core tenet of democratic centralism within the Communist Party leadership. The article quoted Deng Xiaoping, Mao Zedong, and Xi Jinping to underscore the significance of collective leadership, stressing the need for party committees to lead collectively rather than relying on individual leadership.
The commentary also criticized the tendency of some leaders to dominate discussions and decision-making under the guise of centralized decision-making, emphasizing the need for leaders to adhere to collective decision-making processes. This shift in messaging has raised eyebrows among analysts, signaling a departure from Xi’s previous emphasis on the Chairman’s accountability in military matters.
Subsequent articles from the military media reiterated the importance of upholding democratic centralism and avoiding individual dominance in decision-making processes. These signals have raised concerns among observers about potential implications for Xi Jinping’s authority within the military.
Experts, including Shen Mingshi from the Taiwan Institute for National Security Studies, have noted unusual trends regarding Xi Jinping’s power dynamics in recent months. Shen pointed out a decline in official mentions of Xi Jinping or his role as Chairman, with a noticeable focus on other figures like Vice Chairman Zhang Youxia instead. This shift in emphasis has been particularly pronounced within the military ranks.
Analysts like Li Linyi suggest that the military articles calling for collective leadership may indicate a dilution of Xi’s authority within the armed forces, potentially signaling internal resistance to his leadership. Li also highlighted instances where Xi’s positioning within military gatherings seemed subdued, possibly indicating a deliberate attempt to diminish his prominence.
The recent military articles emphasizing collective leadership and downplaying the Chairman’s responsible system have sparked speculation about the motivations behind these shifts. Some view this as a strategic move by Xi Jinping to address concerns about his health or as a response to internal power struggles. Shen Mingshi leans towards the former explanation, suggesting Xi may be decentralizing power due to health issues, signaling a transition to collective leadership to ensure stability in the event of unforeseen circumstances.
Moreover, the timing of these articles, which come on the heels of the investigation into Miao Hua and other high-ranking officials, raises questions about potential factional infighting within the party. If the military continues to promote collective leadership in this manner, it could hinder Xi Jinping’s ability to make unilateral decisions, ultimately reshaping power dynamics within the party.
As these developments unfold, the positioning of such articles within military publications becomes a crucial point of analysis. Placing these discussions on collective leadership on the sixth page of the publication, as opposed to the front page, may indicate a calculated effort to inform troops about the ongoing transition towards collective decision-making processes.
Overall, the recent emphasis on democratic centralism and collective leadership in the military’s discourse reflects a broader shift in messaging within the party. Whether these developments signal a genuine commitment to institutional reform or serve as a strategic maneuver to address internal challenges remains a subject of ongoing analysis among experts.