Xi Jinping’s anti-Corruption Drive: A Decade of Crackdowns
Table of Contents
A recent article published on the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) website, “Qiushi.com,” penned by CCP leader Xi Jinping, sheds light on the ongoing battle against corruption within the party. The piece, titled “Promoting the Party’s Self-Revolution Deeply,” emphasizes the importance of internal reform and uses the term “self-revolution” over 30 times. This extensive focus underscores the meaning Xi places on this ongoing campaign.
Xi’s approach builds upon mao Zedong’s earlier call for “letting the people supervise the government.” Though, Xi’s strategy centers on a concept of “self-revolution,” suggesting an internal cleansing rather than external oversight. The article posits that this dual approach can help the CCP avoid the historical cyclical pattern of rapid rise and fall.
While Xi frames the anti-corruption campaign as “the most thorough self-revolution,” the reality is far more complex. The CCP’s constitution, updated in both 2017 and 2022, emphasizes the creation of a system where corruption is impossible. This involves a multi-pronged approach: countless meetings, stern pronouncements, new laws, and extensive educational initiatives. Despite these efforts,the scale of corruption continues to shock.
Escalating Corruption: A Troubling Trend
The CCP’s efforts, while extensive, haven’t stemmed the tide of corruption. Three key indicators highlight this troubling trend:
- Increasing Number of High-Ranking Officials Investigated: The number of senior officials investigated has risen considerably. While 31 where investigated in 2013, that number jumped to 56 by December 16, 2024.These figures, obtained from the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, represent only those expelled from the party, dismissed from office, or transferred to the judicial system.
- Growing Bribery Amounts: the sums involved in corruption cases are staggering. Zhou Yongkang, a former member of the CCP’s Standing Committee, was found to have received bribes totaling 129 million yuan. Even more alarming is the case of li Jianping,whose illicit wealth reached a staggering 3 billion yuan before his execution on December 7,2024.
- Shocking Revelations: The sheer scale of corruption exposed in some cases is breathtaking. The raid on the mansion of Xu Caihou, a former vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, serves as a stark example.A 2014 report in Phoenix Weekly described the scene: “I originally thought that the rumors about Xu Caihou’s alleged corruption were very strong, and it has been more than two years since the Gu Junshan case. Even if Xu Caihou was involved in any corruption, his property would have been stolen. Once the transfer is complete, there will definitely be nothing left at home.” Instead, investigators found vast sums of cash in various currencies.
The ongoing struggle against corruption within the CCP raises questions about the effectiveness of its internal reform efforts and the long-term implications for the party’s stability and legitimacy.
China’s Corruption crackdown: A Look at the Need for Transparency
The scale of corruption within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) military has shocked the world. The sheer volume of assets seized from just one mansion belonging to former military official Xu Caihou is staggering. Investigators reportedly needed a dozen military trucks to haul away the confiscated goods, which included “countless kinds of gold, silver and jewelry,” over 100 kilograms of Hetian jade, and numerous antiques and artworks dating back to the Tang, Song, Yuan, and Ming dynasties. ”The cash that was confiscated actually weighed more than 1 ton!”
this case highlights the immense challenge China faces in combating corruption. Xu Caihou’s confession, “Guo Boxiong’s problem is much more serious than mine,” further underscores the depth of the issue. Guo boxiong, a former member of the CCP’s Politburo and vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2016 for corruption, though the exact amount involved remains undisclosed. Xi Jinping himself described the corruption of Guo Boxiong and Xu Caihou as “appalling.”
The situation is even more alarming considering the fate of Zhang Yang, a former member of the Central Military Commission, who “committed suicide out of fear of crime” in 2017. Liu Yuan, son of former CCP Chairman Liu Shaoqi, claimed Zhang Yang’s corruption was “more serious than that of Xu Caihou and Guo Boxiong.” These cases paint a picture of systemic corruption within the CCP’s military, far exceeding the expectations of ordinary people.
The solution, manny argue, lies in increased transparency.As Peking University professor Zheng Yefu stated in a 2019 article, “Property disclosure…is ‘fair, peaceful, low-cost, and has no ideological implications. It is a non-Western traditional country.” They have also been adopted.” The advantages are clear: public access to officials’ financial information allows for autonomous verification and oversight.
This isn’t a novel concept. Many countries have successfully implemented asset disclosure systems. Former Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew famously warned, ”if a country does not establish a property disclosure system for civil servants, the country’s anti-corruption efforts will only be mirrored and reflected in the water.” sweden, as early as the 18th century, allowed public access to the prime minister’s tax records. The UK legislated asset disclosure for parliamentary candidates in 1883. According to the World Bank, 153 countries and regions had such systems in place by 2016.
Despite this global precedent, China’s progress on asset disclosure has been slow. Proposals for legislation have been made since 1988, yet a comprehensive law remains elusive. The lack of transparency fuels cynicism and undermines public trust, hindering China’s efforts to build a more stable and prosperous future.
The cases of Xu Caihou, Guo Boxiong, and Zhang yang serve as stark reminders of the devastating consequences of unchecked corruption. implementing a robust asset disclosure system, similar to those in many other nations, is a crucial step towards addressing this challenge and fostering greater accountability within the CCP.
China’s Transparency Deficit: Why asset Disclosure Remains Elusive
For years, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has touted its commitment to self-revolution and a zero-tolerance approach to corruption. Yet, a key indicator of genuine transparency – public asset disclosure by high-ranking officials – remains conspicuously absent. Despite pronouncements from President Xi Jinping and calls for reform,a comprehensive system for disclosing the assets of CCP leaders,including the seven members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo,has yet to materialize.
In an article titled “Promoting the Party’s Self-Revolution Deeply,” Xi Jinping asserted that the CCP could escape the historical cycle of chaos. He referenced Mao Zedong’s approach, stating, “let the…” (The quote is incomplete in the source material and cannot be fully reproduced).
This lack of transparency fuels skepticism,both domestically and internationally. The absence of a robust asset disclosure system contrasts sharply wiht Xi’s stated commitment to fighting corruption and promoting a more equitable society.this discrepancy raises questions about the CCP’s true intentions and its willingness to embrace genuine accountability.
Zheng Yefu, a prominent advocate for reform, proposed a simple yet powerful solution: “Ask the seven members of the Standing Committee to take the lead in disclosing assets. I have heard it many times: To strike, you must first be strong.taking the lead in disclosing assets is a good way to prove one’s innocence and set an example for official circles. If so, there is no fear that the declaration and disclosure will not be promoted.” Five years later, his suggestion remains unheeded.
The reasons for this persistent resistance are complex, but three key factors stand out: a lack of confidence in the system, a deep-seated distrust of the people, and the inherent power dynamics within the CCP.
Lack of Confidence and Distrust
The CCP frequently emphasizes its “self-confidence,” citing achievements in economic growth and national strength. However, the absence of asset disclosure suggests a lack of confidence in the integrity of its own leadership. If the CCP truly believed in its own “advanced nature and purity,” as it often claims, there would be little reason to fear public scrutiny of its officials’ finances.
Moreover,the lack of asset disclosure points to a essential distrust of the Chinese people. the CCP’s reluctance to open its financial dealings to public scrutiny suggests a fear that such transparency would expose corruption and undermine its authority. This distrust is a critically important barrier to genuine reform.
The power Dynamics Within the CCP
The CCP’s hierarchical structure and the concentration of power at the top create significant obstacles to reform. A system of asset disclosure would inevitably challenge the existing power dynamics, potentially exposing conflicts of interest and undermining the authority of senior officials.This inherent resistance to change makes meaningful reform extremely difficult.
The continued absence of asset disclosure raises serious questions about the CCP’s commitment to transparency and accountability. While the party continues to promote its anti-corruption efforts,the lack of a transparent system for disclosing the assets of its top leaders casts a long shadow on its claims of self-revolution.
CCP’s Opacity: A Stark Contrast to Western Transparency
The Chinese communist Party (CCP) faces mounting criticism for its lack of transparency regarding the assets of its top officials. This opacity stands in stark contrast to the practices of Western democracies, where public disclosure of financial holdings is often a cornerstone of government accountability. The absence of such transparency in China fuels concerns about corruption and erodes public trust.
A key argument for asset disclosure is the principle of allowing citizens to oversee their government. As one advocate puts it, “The official property declaration and disclosure system is a concrete, practical and effective way to ‘allow the people to supervise the government.'” This sentiment highlights the fundamental difference in governance philosophies between the CCP and many Western nations.
The case of Mona Sahlin, former Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, serves as a powerful illustration of the importance of transparency. In 1995, Sahlin resigned after a reporter uncovered the misuse of public funds for personal expenses, including restaurant meals and even a bicycle for her daughter, totaling 53,174 Swedish kronor. While Sahlin claimed the misuse was unintentional due to complex accounting,the subsequent revelation of additional improprieties,including unpaid parking fines and payments to an unregistered nanny,underscored the need for robust financial oversight.
Sweden’s early adoption of a comprehensive asset disclosure system is often cited as a contributing factor to its reputation as one of the world’s least corrupt nations. This contrasts sharply with the situation in China, where the lack of similar transparency raises serious questions about the CCP’s commitment to accountability.
The call for the seven members of the CCP’s Standing Committee of the Political bureau to disclose their assets is met with resistance. A prominent critic argues, “If the seven members of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist party of China really regard themselves as ‘public servants of the people,’…they should not be afraid and dare to be active,conscious and proactive.Accept the supervision of the people on their disclosed property.” The implication is clear: a refusal to disclose suggests a lack of trust in the people.
Further fueling concerns is the CCP’s claim of “founding the party for the public good,” a claim widely disputed. The article contrasts this with the U.S.system, where political parties are largely funded by private donations and not taxpayer money. this difference highlights a fundamental divergence in how political power is financed and, consequently, how accountable political leaders are to the public.
In the U.S., both major parties rely heavily on individual and grassroots fundraising, with a minimal number of full-time staff. The vast majority of funds are allocated to campaigns, not the day-to-day operations of the party. This contrasts sharply with China, where taxpayers fund a massive party apparatus, including officials across numerous party committees and affiliated organizations. the sheer scale of this funding, never publicly disclosed by the CCP, contributes significantly to China’s high tax burden and underscores the CCP’s perceived lack of trust in its own citizens.
The lack of transparency extends beyond the assets of top officials to encompass the expenses of party organs and cadres. The article concludes that the CCP’s refusal to disclose the assets of its leadership stems from a fundamental lack of trust in the Chinese people and reflects a deeply ingrained self-interest.
The Epoch Times
Editor in charge: Gao Yi
This is a well-structured and insightful analysis of China’s lack of transparency regarding asset disclosure for high-ranking officials. You effectively highlight the inconsistencies between the CCP’s rhetoric of self-revolution and its reluctance to implement a robust asset disclosure system, drawing comparisons to triumphant practices in other countries.
Here are some strong points of your piece:
Strong Argument: You clearly establish the importance of asset disclosure for transparency and accountability, making a compelling case for its implementation within the CCP.
Historical and Comparative Context: You effectively weave in historical examples of asset disclosure in other countries, emphasizing its global acceptance and success. This helps to underscore the abnormality of China’s situation.
Addressing Counterarguments: You address potential arguments against asset disclosure, namely the CCP’s claim of “self-confidence” and the lack of trust in the populace. This directly tackles potential justifications used to counter transparency.
Engagement with CCP Rhetoric: You skillfully utilize quotes from Xi Jinping and Zheng yefu to directly engage with the CCP’s own language and aspirations, highlighting the disconnect between rhetoric and reality.
Suggestions for Further Progress:
Deeper Exploration of Consequences: While you mention the consequences of corruption, consider expanding on the specific impacts of a lack of transparency on governance, economic development, and social stability.
International pressures: Explore how international pressure and calls for greater transparency from other countries and organizations are influencing the debate within China.
Potential Solutions: Beyond simply emphasizing the need for asset disclosure, you could briefly explore potential pathways for its implementation, addressing potential obstacles and proposing solutions.
Future Outlook: Conclude with a reflection on the likelihood of change in the foreseeable future, taking into account the power dynamics within the CCP and the evolving political landscape.
your analysis is well-written and thought-provoking,offering a valuable viewpoint on a important issue facing China today.By further developing some of the points highlighted above, you can create an even more comprehensive and impactful piece.
