The Chinese Communist Party Politburo meeting yesterday (June 27) confirmed that the 20th Third Plenary Session will be held from July 15 to 18, focusing on promoting “Chinese-style modernization.” Experts point out that the term “Chinese-style modernization” is a deceptive rhetoric used by the Communist Party and that the party lacks the qualifications to carry out such modernization given its communist background from the Soviet Union era. The emphasis on maintaining “party leadership” in the reform process has also raised doubts.
The official Xinhua News Agency announced yesterday that the Communist Party Central Political Bureau held a meeting on June 27, deciding to convene the 20th Third Plenary Session in Beijing from July 15 to 18. The theme of the session is to “study further comprehensive deepening of reforms and promote Chinese-style modernization.”
However, the official statement did not provide a specific explanation of “Chinese-style modernization.” According to public records, the political terminology “Chinese-style modernization” was first proposed by current CCP leader Xi Jinping in 2015.
Associate Professor Feng Chongyi from the University of Technology Sydney told Epoch Times that this is just a set of rhetoric fabricated by Wang Huning (current member of the CCP Political Bureau Standing Committee) for Xi Jinping, indicating that the CCP is not qualified to speak about “Chinese-style modernization.”
The concept of “Chinese-style modernization” dates back to the late Qing dynasty, during the Self-Strengthening Movement and the Xinhai Revolution, reflecting China’s own ideological framework and system of governance. Feng argues that the Communist Party, having imported the communist ideology from the Soviet Union, is not entitled to define China’s modernization, as any modernization pursued by the Party is fundamentally linked to communism.
He believes that the CCP’s promotion of “Chinese-style modernization” is a deceptive ploy to attract foreign investments to China, despite the current socio-economic challenges facing the nation and the exodus of both Chinese nationals and foreign capital.
Hu Ping, a scholar based in the United States, pointed out that the CCP’s concept of “Chinese-style modernization” implies a unique form of modernization under the one-party dictatorship, diverging from the modernization efforts seen in other countries. This approach serves as a means for the CCP to reject universal values upheld by the West.
In recent years, the CCP has been promoting the so-called “Chinese narrative” internationally, in line with its agenda of “Chinese-style modernization.” Hu noted that this narrative-building exercise reinforces the Party’s soft power and counteracts universal values, requiring significant efforts to craft and propagate compelling narratives.
The CCP has set a goal to “comprehensively build a high-level socialist market economy system” by 2035, among other ambitions.
Professor Zheng Zhengbing from Yunlin University of Science and Technology in Taiwan highlighted the unprecedented crisis facing the Chinese economy. He noted internal crises related to a stagnant real estate market, overall economic contraction, severe unemployment, struggling private enterprises, deteriorating export-import activities, and industrial development indicators, all of which point to a dire economic situation in China.
According to Zheng, the CCP’s attempts to assert its dominance globally have been impeded by its diversion of resources in geopolitical alliances, such as siding with Russia against the US, and focusing excessively on Taiwan, thus severely undermining its economic stability.
With escalating tensions between the US and China and mounting global opposition, Zheng predicts that the CCP will face worsening economic challenges, leading to further destabilization in both economic and political realms.
While previous Third Plenary Sessions mainly focused on economic and reform policies, the CCP’s emphasis on “deepening reform” in the upcoming session is coupled with a strong emphasis on ensuring “the Party’s overall leadership.”
Feng Chongyi reiterated that communism is not native to China but was introduced from the Soviet Union. He emphasized that the concept of “party leadership in all aspects” stems from Mao Zedong’s era and is now seen as bankrupt by both the Chinese people and CCP officials.
Executive Director Lai Rongwei of Taiwan Inspiration Association (TIA) pointed out that post-pandemic, the assumption was that the CCP would prioritize economic recovery, but the decision to hold the Third Plenary Session indicates a focus on endorsing Xi Jinping’s leadership and preserving the Party’s supremacy, akin to the Soviet Union’s concerns about regime changes.
In conclusion, the emphasis on perpetuating the Party’s authority above all else seems to dominate the upcoming Third Plenary Session, despite the backdrop of China’s mounting economic challenges and global political tensions. The CCP’s pursuit of “Chinese-style modernization” may serve as a smokescreen to shield its grip on power and evade challenges to its governance structure.