It is hard to imagine, but 25 years ago the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was nearly toppled by a pro-democracy movement. It was then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) steely nerves and the tanks of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army that enabled the regime, at the cost of several hundred civilian lives, to avoid collapse.
On the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4, 1989, two questions stand out: How has the CCP survived the last quarter-century, and can its rule endure for another 25 years?
The answer to the first question is relatively straightforward. Policy adjustments, clever manipulation and luck enabled the CCP to win it the support it needed to retain power and suppress destabilizing forces.
However, serious mistakes were made. Following the massacre, conservative leaders attempted to reverse the reforms that Deng had initiated in the 1980s, plunging the Chinese economy into recession. The Soviet Union’s implosion in 1991 also caused panic in the CCP.
However, Deng again saved the party. Mustering all his energy and political capital, the 87-year-old leader revived pro-market economic reforms, unleashing an economic revolution that delivered unprecedented growth and development, thereby boosting the CCP’s credibility.
Deng and his successors re-enforced this trend by granting Chinese citizens considerable personal freedoms, fueling the emergence of a culture of crass consumerism and mass entertainment.
In this new world of “bread and circuses,” it was far easier for the CCP to regain public support and suppress the opposition. Carefully orchestrated moves to promote Chinese nationalism and exploit xenophobia also helped.
Even repression, the mainstay of the regime’s survival, was fine-tuned. China’s newly acquired wealth enabled its leaders to build one of the world’s most technically sophisticated Internet firewalls and equip its internal security forces with the most effective tools.
In dealing with China’s small, but resilient, dissident community, the regime depends on the strategy of “decapitation.” In other words, the government eliminates the threat posed by leading opposition figures by jailing them or forcing them into exile, regardless of their prominence. Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) — who won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize — was sentenced to 11 years in prison, despite worldwide protest.
However cynical, the approach has worked. Yet the CCP might not have been quite so successful had it not been lucky in a few critical areas. For starters, the post-1992 reforms coincided with a surge in globalization, which provided China with massive capital inflows (about US$1 trillion in foreign direct investment since 1992), a slew of new technologies and virtually unimpeded access to Western consumer markets.
China thus became the workshop of the world, with its exports rising more than 10-fold by 2007.
Another factor that worked in the regime’s favor was the so-called demographic dividend — an abundant labor force and a relatively small percentage of children and elderly dependents. This provided China with plentiful low-cost labor, while saving the government large expenditures on pensions and healthcare.
The problem facing the CCP is that most of the factors that enabled it to survive since the Tiananmen massacre have either already disappeared or are heading that way.
Indeed, for all practical purposes, pro-market reforms are dead. A kleptocracy of government officials, their families, and well-connected businesspeople has colonized the Chinese state and is intent on blocking reforms that threaten their privileged status. Moreover, the CCP can no longer count on rising prosperity to sustain public support. Rampant corruption and rising inequality, together with obvious environmental decay, are causing ordinary Chinese — especially the middle class, which once had high hopes for reform — to become increasingly disillusioned.
At the same time, given a rapidly aging population, China’s demographic dividend has all but dissipated. Also, given that China is already the world’s largest exporter, with more than 11 percent of the global market share, there is little room left for export growth in the coming years.
That leaves only repression and nationalism in the CCP’s post-Tiananmen toolkit. Indeed, both of them continue to play a central role in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) strategy for ensuring the party’s survival.
Yet Xi is also experimenting with two new devices: an unprecedented anti-corruption campaign and an attempt to revive pro-market reforms. So far, his war on corruption has made a bigger impact than his plan for economic reform.
On the surface, Xi’s strategy is sound, but waging war on corrupt officials and pressing for deep reforms aimed at dismantling China’s kleptocracy will inevitably bring Xi into conflict with China’s political and economic elites. The question is how he can overcome their resistance without rallying the Chinese people, whose political mobilization could endanger the one-party system.
The CCP defied the doomsayers after 1989: It survived and pre-empted any further threats to its power, but the odds that it can hold on for another quarter-century have become long — and are unlikely to improve.
Minxin Pei is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and a non-resident senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund based in the US.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS