Recently, the official research institution of the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, reportedly underwent a “political purge” due to some officials allegedly “misinterpreting the central government”. The President and Secretary of the Party Committee of the academy, Gao Xiang, emphasized that the selection process for the new department committees must adhere to “serving Xi Jinping,” requiring absolute loyalty from the newly elected members. Analysts suggest that this represents Xi Jinping’s reliance on information only portraying a positive outlook, which in turn poses a significant crisis for his governance.
According to a report on the official website of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, last Friday (20th), the academy appointed nine scholars as members of department committees to fill the positions of the sudden replacement of the director, secretary, and deputy director of the Economics Institute in August.
During the meeting, Gao Xiang, the Secretary of the Party Committee of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, emphasized that the Party Committee of the academy evaluates the new department committee members based on “political standards,” insisting on upholding the “three consensus” requirements throughout the selection process. Gao Xiang demanded that the newly elected department committee members serve as exemplary figures of absolute loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party.
The “three consensus” refer to “managing the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in line with the requirements of Xi Jinping and the Central Committee of the CPC,” “serving Xi Jinping and the Central Committee of the CPC is the mission of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,” and praising “Xi Jinping Thought” as the “banner and soul” of social sciences, among others.
These “three consensus” have frequently appeared in multiple official articles of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences since last year. On June 2, 2023, Xi Jinping personally attended a symposium at the Chinese Historical Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and delivered a speech.
According to current affairs commentator Li Lin, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is known as a think tank and ideological stronghold of the CPC Central Committee, with the Chinese Historical Research Institute being a political symbol personally supported by Xi Jinping, led by Gao Xiang as both Secretary and President. Articles published by the Chinese Historical Research Institute in the past two years have been very leftist, such as “A New Exploration of the Issue of ‘Closed Door Policy’ in the Ming and Qing Dynasties,” which has been criticized for revising history, and defending the Boxer Rebellion and the “Go to the Countryside” movement.
Last week, Hong Kong’s “Sing Tao Daily” reported a “political earthquake” at the Economic Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, where the deputy director Zhu Hengpeng was allegedly punished for “misinterpreting the central government,” resulting in a complete overhaul of the institute’s leadership; furthermore, the academy was instructed to clear out any “vestiges.”
The reasons for Zhu Hengpeng’s disciplinary action based on his expressions remain unknown. Zhu Hengpeng, born in 1969, was previously a standing committee member, deputy secretary, and deputy director of the Economic Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, as well as the director of the Public Policy Research Center of the Academy, focusing on research in recent years on public hospital reform and healthcare insurance systems.
Cultural scholar and independent media figure Wenzhao, residing in Canada, analyzed that the leadership of the Economic Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which was targeted for disciplinary action, was reportedly a team left behind by Liu He, a former Vice Premier of the CCP and a close associate of Xi Jinping. Liu He previously served as the director of the office of the Central Financial and Economic Leading Group and was a key figure in CCP economic policy. During Xi Jinping’s second term, Liu He served as the head of the Chinese delegation in the China-US trade negotiations. The crackdown on his team signifies a marginalization of Liu He’s influence, if not direct repercussions, at least indicating a divergence in views. This ideological group led by Liu He is losing influence.
Over the past year, several Chinese economists have also faced censorship for expressing views that contradict official narratives. Individuals like Dan Bin, chairman of Shenzhen Eastern Harbor Investment Management Company, financial blogger Hong Rong, founder of the investment research institution GLTech, Chen Shouhong, well-known commentator Shuipi, economist Ma Guangyuan, financial writer Wu Xiaobo, former senior investment consultant at Zhongjin Fortune Securities, Xu Xiaoyu, and former dean of the School of Business at China University of Political Science and Law, Liu Jipeng, have all been affected.
Li Lin believes that the significant purge within the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences due to the comments of an official from the Economic Institute not aligning with Xi Jinping’s ideology indicates that even the so-called think tank of the CCP is only dedicated to serving the party leader. However, this also signifies that the information Xi Jinping receives presents an overly positive narrative, focusing solely on flattering him, which, ironically, poses a severe crisis for Xi’s governance.
An article published recently by The Economist, a British magazine, suggests that one of the major challenges facing the Chinese economy is the strict control of information, highly centralized political control, and a governance culture built on “fear.” To avoid embarrassment for the leadership amid economic fragility, Chinese officials may distort information submitted. However, this approach may ultimately lead the CCP regime to repeat the fate of the Soviet Union’s collapse.