In October 2017, at the 19th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the party enshrined in its constitution a new political doctrine: “Xi Jinping (習近平) Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in a New Era.”
At a time when a rapidly modernizing China is a leading global player, it is tempting to dismiss this doctrine as anachronistic “party-speak” from a bygone age.
We succumb to that temptation at our peril.
Five months after the constitutional change, the Chinese congress abolished the presidential term limit, meaning that, barring a political earthquake, Xi — who, at age 65, remains healthy and vigorous — could remain president for perhaps another 20 years. His eponymous doctrine will therefore shape China’s development and global engagement for decades to come, and perhaps longer.
In a sense, the inclusion of Xi’s name and thought in the CCP constitution delivered to him the exalted status of the People’s Republic’s founding father, Mao Zedong (毛澤東), as well as the architect of China’s modernization, Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) — the only two other leaders mentioned in the document.
That, together with the removal of term limits, has led many to argue that Xi is the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao.
However, even if true, this does not mean that Xi is attempting to restore Maoist totalitarianism. While Xi has a much more positive view of China’s Maoist past than any other leader since Deng, he is no Maoist.
Instead, Xi’s approach to governance closely resembles that of China’s first president under Mao, Liu Shaoqi (劉少奇), a devoted Leninist who selectively adapted Confucian ideas to build a Sinicized party-state.
For Liu, the party was pivotal; for Mao, by contrast, it was ultimately dispensable, as the Cultural Revolution — of which Liu himself was a casualty — demonstrated.
Unlike Mao, who found chaos exhilarating, Xi shares Liu’s longing to exercise control through the CCP, which he expects to take the lead — and apply “Xi Jinping Thought” — in all policy areas: political, military, civilian and academic.
The contrast with Deng is even sharper. Deng’s reforms were defined by pragmatism and experimentation, aimed at identifying the most effective approach to modernization.
In the 1980s, Deng even briefly considered the radical possibility of separating the CCP from the state, though he abandoned the idea after the pro-democracy Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.
Nonetheless, Deng and his successors — Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) — continued to open China to the West, and remained willing to tolerate the spread, within limits, of some liberal ideas.
This is not the case with Xi, whose repeated commitment to deepening reform is muddied by his redefinition of what that should entail.
Xi sees no place for political experimentation or liberal values in China, and regards democratization, civil society and universal human rights as anathema.
Deepening reform means solidifying control over the CCP, via his “anti-corruption campaign,” and over the population, including through the use of advanced technologies enabled by artificial intelligence.
Such digital authoritarianism will, Xi hopes, prevent liberal or democratic ideas from taking root and spreading, even as China remains connected to the rest of the world.
Chinese citizens may enjoy freedom as consumers and investors, but not as participants in civil society or civic discourse.
Managing this tension between international openness and state control is vital for Xi to achieve another key goal of his doctrine to “make China great again.”
On the one hand, this entails instilling a party-centric nationalism, so that citizens embrace the primacy of the CCP and of Xi himself. Those who are slower to meet this expectation might find themselves under surveillance and even sent to so-called re-education camps, like those in Xinjiang, where hundreds of thousands (or more) Muslim Uighurs are detained.
On the other hand, making China great again means projecting power and leadership on the world stage. After decades of adhering to Deng’s injunction that China should “hide its strength and bide its time,” the country’s moment, Xi believes, has come.
One way Xi hopes to boost China’s global standing is by ensuring that it is on the frontier of technology. To that end, the state is offering its full support to national champions in cutting-edge sectors, as stipulated in the government’s Made in China 2025 strategy, which competitors, especially the US, decry as unfair.
It is no coincidence that the US has been targeting Huawei Technologies, which has received as much state support as any company in any country in modern times.
Canada’s decision to heed the US’ request to detain Huawei (華為) chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou (孟晚舟) for alleged fraud and violations of US sanctions against Iran amounted, in Xi’s eyes, to a failure to respect China’s standing and interests, and thus merited retaliation.
China soon detained two Canadians on allegations of “engaging in activities that endanger [China’s] national security,” and resentenced a Canadian convicted of drug smuggling, imposing the death penalty.
The goal of Xi Jinping Thought is not to launch a Cold War with the West, or to export China’s political model. Rather, Xi wants to shore up the authority of the party-state — and his own brand of authoritarianism — within China, including by ensuring that Chinese are not exposed to liberal-democratic ideas.
Understanding this is vital to enable the world to engage effectively with an increasingly formidable China.
Steve Tsang is director of the School of Oriental and African Studies’ China Institute at the University of London.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS