Chinese President Xi Jinping’s continued pattern of purging
high-ranking officials, particularly within the military, reveals deep-seated insecurities despite his 13-year reign of increasingly centralized power. The recent dismissal of nine senior generals, including Politburo member General He Weidong, demonstrates that Xi’s campaign to maintain control through fear and loyalty shows no signs of abating.
Since assuming leadership in 2012, Xi has wielded anti-corruption initiatives as a political tool, targeting potential rivals while promoting personal loyalists. According to US intelligence reports, nearly five million officials across all government levels have faced corruption charges during his tenure. While initially popular among citizens frustrated with systemic corruption, the selective nature of enforcement has exposed these campaigns as mechanisms for power consolidation rather than genuine reform.
At 72, Xi’s refusal to name a successor – unprecedented even compared to Mao Zedong – highlights his deep-rooted anxieties about maintaining power. This reluctance to plan for transition raises serious concerns about China’s future stability and governance. The emphasis on personal loyalty over competence has eroded the collective leadership model that once characterized Chinese governance, replacing it with a system marked by sycophancy and perpetual uncertainty.
The military has been particularly impacted by Xi’s leadership style. Despite ambitious modernization efforts aimed at creating a more capable fighting force, repeated purges have disrupted military planning and leadership continuity. The 2023 removal of Rocket Force commanders, responsible for China’s nuclear and conventional missile arsenal, exemplifies how political considerations may be compromising national security interests.
Installing inexperienced loyalists in place of seasoned commanders might serve Xi’s political interests but potentially weakens China’s military effectiveness. When military leaders prioritize political survival over operational excellence, both morale and combat readiness suffer. This raises questions about the PLA’s actual capability to engage in potential conflicts with major powers like the United States or India under such political constraints.
While Xi has primarily pursued territorial ambitions through coercion rather than direct conflict, the combination of a paranoid leader surrounded by yes-men creates dangerous potential for strategic miscalculation. Historical parallels to Stalin’s pre-World War II purge of Soviet military leadership serve as a cautionary tale about the risks of prioritizing political control over military competence.
These leadership dynamics play out against a backdrop of mounting domestic challenges, including economic slowdown, youth unemployment, and demographic decline. Popular dissatisfaction may be growing beneath the surface, though aggressive repression makes this difficult to gauge. Xi’s reliance on fear as a governing tool may secure immediate compliance but undermines long-term stability.
The paradox of Xi’s approach is that each move to strengthen his grip on power may actually increase his vulnerability. A system that demands absolute obedience leaves little room for the innovation and collaboration necessary for effective governance. While Xi’s methods may be more sophisticated than Mao’s devastating purges, they follow similar logic and could produce comparable instability.
China’s mounting structural challenges require creative solutions and competent leadership. However, Xi’s preoccupation with eliminating perceived threats and demanding unflinching loyalty creates an environment where officials focus on political survival rather than addressing fundamental problems. As Xi continues to consolidate power through fear and purges, he may be laying the groundwork for future instability rather than the lasting control he seeks.