logo
Signs mount Xi under pressure to cede some power

Signs mount Xi under pressure to cede some power

AllAfrica2 days ago
Political and economic pressures might force Chinese President and overall leader Xi Jinping to delegate some of his powers to his deputies in a highly significant move. This has prompted some observers and media outlets to speculate that Xi's grip on power may be waning.
A major part of why this is happening is likely to stem from Xi's difficulties in dealing with China's economic woes, which began with a real estate crisis in 2021. For years, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has relied on providing economic prosperity to legitimize its rule over the country.
But the continuously lackluster performance of the Chinese economy over the past four years and Trump's trade war with Beijing are making recovery a difficult task. And this is likely to be a factor that undermines Xi's rule.
These rumors about Xi started just after the latest meeting, on June 30, of the Politburo (the principal policy-making body of the party), which brings China's top leaders together to make major decisions.
For people who don't follow Chinese politics, the idea of Xi delegating some authority might seem nothing special. However, in understanding China, it's important to understand that Xi has massive power, and it seems the Politburo is signaling there are some changes on the horizon.
Symbolism and indirect language play an important role in how the Communist Party communicates with Chinese people. The way it is done comes through slogans or key phrases, which are collectively known as 'tifa' (提法).
This method of information is important since it shapes political language and debate and influences how a Chinese audience and an international audience understand what is going on.
At first glance, the Politburo's call for enhancing 'policy coordination' and the 'review process' of major tasks may appear to indicate that the central government is seeking to ensure local officials follow through with Beijing's agenda.
But there is probably more to the Politburo's statement than meets the eye. The statement said that specialized bodies that exist within the party's central committee, which includes the powerful commissions that Xi's loyalists now hold, should focus on 'guidance and coordination over major initiatives' and 'avoid taking over others' functions or overstepping boundaries.'
For experienced China watchers, there are hints here that this powerful decision-making body is making a veiled threat against Xi for holding on to too much power. But the opaque nature of China's elite decision-making process, where a great deal of backroom politics occurs behind closed doors, means that decoding its messages isn't always easy.
Because of all of this, there is increasing speculation that a power struggle is in progress. This isn't entirely surprising given that Xi's purge of many senior party officials through anti-corruption campaigns and his dominance over the highest levels of government are likely to have earned him many enemies over the years.
Another sign that all isn't going well with Xi's regime is the removal of some of his allies from key positions within the government. Xi began his anti-corruption campaign in 2012 when he became China's leader. On paper, while the campaign is officially framed as a drive to clean up corruption, evidence suggests that it may have been used to remove Xi's political rivals.
The problem for Xi is that the campaign is being used against his loyalists as well. In October 2023, Defense Minister Li Shangfu, who was considered a Xi ally, was sacked due to what were later confirmed in 2024 to be corruption charges. But the dismissals of Xi loyalists continued.
Admiral Miao Hua, who was in charge of ideological control and personnel appointment within the armed forces and Xi's associate since his days as a party official in Fujian province, was suspended from office in November 2024. And in June 2025, he was removed after being investigated for corruption.
The previous month, General He Weidong, who was vice-chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission, was also arrested for alleged corruption. Are the purges a consequence of Xi ceding ground to political rivals? This is a possibility.
But even if it weren't and the purges are part of a concerted effort to stamp out corruption, Xi's campaign will not only cast aspersions on his ability to appoint the right people into government, but also create a climate of fear among allies and potentially create further enemies.
Either scenario puts Xi on the spot. But since Xi became China's head of state in 2013, he and his loyalists have taken over leadership of many key national commissions, making him the most powerful Chinese leader since the time of Chairman Mao.
These commissions include the Central Financial Commission, which regulates China's financial markets, the Central Science and Technology Commission, which aims to accelerate China's technological progress, and the Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission, which regulates China's digital content.
But it looks like Xi is about to delegate some of his power, and there are some other decisions that may indicate a shift.
For the first time since coming into power in 2012, Xi skipped the annual summit organized by the BRICS group (named after Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa,) Instead, from July 5 to 7 this year, Chinese Premier Li Qiang led a delegation to Rio de Janeiro.
This isn't the first time that Li has represented Xi in high-profile conferences abroad. In September 2023, Li attended the G20 summit in New Delhi, India, and has taken part in ASEAN summits.
But the BRICS appearance alongside with Li's increasingly prominent role in economic policymaking may suggest that his influence is on the rise, while Xi's is declining. Watch this space.
Chee Meng Tan is an assistant professor of business economics, University of Nottingham.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

China slams EU banking sanctions as tensions rise ahead of key summit
China slams EU banking sanctions as tensions rise ahead of key summit

South China Morning Post

timean hour ago

  • South China Morning Post

China slams EU banking sanctions as tensions rise ahead of key summit

Beijing has called on the European Union to 'immediately cease its wrong practice' of sanctioning two Chinese banks, vowing to take action to defend the interests of Chinese companies just days ahead of a key leaders' summit between the two sides. 'China expresses strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition to this move,' China's Ministry of Commerce (Mofcom) said in a statement on Monday. 'China will take necessary measures to resolutely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies and financial institutions.' On Friday, in its latest package of measures designed to hobble Russia's war machine, the EU announced sanctions on two small Chinese banks from cities close to China's border with Russia: Suifenhe Rural Commercial Bank and Heihe Rural Commercial Bank. This came as both sides prepared for a high-stakes summit in Beijing on Thursday, where European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa are scheduled to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang, according to China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Beijing had lobbied intensively behind the scenes to get the banks removed from the package, according to sources familiar with the exchanges. During a meeting with the EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, earlier this month, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned 'three or four times' that there would be a response to the banks' inclusion, the sources said.

Who's fueling Pakistan's Baloch militancy – and why?
Who's fueling Pakistan's Baloch militancy – and why?

AllAfrica

timean hour ago

  • AllAfrica

Who's fueling Pakistan's Baloch militancy – and why?

In a geopolitical arena increasingly defined by shadows and silence, few conflicts exemplify the dynamics of proxy warfare better than the ongoing militancy in Pakistan's Balochistan province. On July 15, geopolitical commentator Brian Berletic reignited this debate by alleging that Washington may be quietly enabling Baloch militants to accelerate militant activities, particularly against the Chinese engineers and Pakistani security forces in the province. While the veracity of his claims remains contested, they tap into a growing body of evidence suggesting that Baloch militancy is no longer a purely domestic insurgency and is becoming a lever in a broader strategic tug-of-war between two powers. In the last two weeks, Balochistan has witnessed a dozen militant attacks that killed more than 50 people, including two major rank officers of the Pakistan Army. Balochistan, long a flashpoint of political dissent and insurgency, has now become a fault line in a larger global confrontation. Bordering Iran and Afghanistan and home to the strategic Gwadar Port, the province is a linchpin in China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Gwadar's connectivity offers Beijing a trade route bypassing the Malacca Strait, thereby unsettling the strategic calculus of Washington and its allies. Against this backdrop, each explosion targeting Chinese assets seems to echo not just domestic discontent but also certain international anxieties. While there is no smoking gun linking the US to Baloch separatists, circumstantial indicators have become difficult to dismiss. Reports by institutions such as the US Institute of Peace, Foreign Policy and Radio Free Europe have chronicled how abandoned American weapons in Afghanistan, left in the wake of America's hasty 2021 withdrawal, have found their way into the hands of militant groups, including the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Such proliferation of US materiel, even if unintended, becomes part of the strategic ecosystem shaping violence in the region, especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The narrative becomes murkier when considering ideological affinities. Baloch insurgents, unlike jihadist movements, couch their rhetoric in secular nationalism, democratic rights and ethnic self-determination, terms that align comfortably with Western liberal values. This alignment has earned them platforms in Washington and Brussels, with diaspora organizations such as the Baloch American Congress advocating openly for US congressional intervention and global scrutiny of Pakistani counterinsurgency policies. While public lobbying does not equate to covert sponsorship, the optics are telling. The same BLA that has claimed responsibility for suicide bombings against Chinese nationals in the recent past is the subject of panel discussions and briefings in Western capitals. The US government's 2019 designation of the BLA as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) appears, on closer inspection, more cosmetic than consequential. Little effort has apparently been made to stem the group's transnational networking, fundraising or narrative-building efforts. This duality is not unprecedented. From Latin America to the Middle East, the US has a long history of maintaining a diplomatic posture in public while facilitating, or at least tolerating, destabilizing elements in private. In Syria, for instance, American condemnation of jihadist violence was accompanied by covert support to anti-Assad forces. The lines between rebels and terrorists were often redrawn depending on the utility they offered against regional rivals. In insurgent-riddled Balochistan, the strategic logic is not so different. Baloch militants disrupting China's infrastructure investments serve a purpose, even if Washington's hands appear clean. The same logic applies to Iran, where Baloch-dominated areas in Sistan and Baluchestan remain hotspots of insurgent activity. Tehran has consistently accused the US and Israel of fostering groups like Jaish al-Adl – a Sunni militant group responsible for attacks on Iranian security forces. Whether these claims are true or false, the persistent instability in these borderlands benefits actors looking to contain Iran's regional reach. India's role further complicates the equation. Wary of growing China-Pakistan cooperation, New Delhi has been accused by Islamabad of funding Baloch separatists from Dubai, the UAE and other Gulf states. With the Taliban now in power and reshuffling regional alliances, the question of who continues to aid the BLA has resurfaced. Pakistan's muted response to these developments is telling. Despite a litany of attacks on security forces and Chinese personnel in Pakistan, Islamabad has avoided naming the US as a potential stakeholder in the insurgency. Instead, the blame is largely directed at India, or vaguely attributed to 'hostile intelligence agencies.' This diplomatic restraint is not without reason. Pakistan's economic fragility—underscored by recurring bailouts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and reliance on Western financial systems—leaves it ill-equipped to confront Washington directly. Yet silence carries its own risks. By refusing to confront the full scope of the insurgency's geopolitical entanglements, Pakistan allows the crisis to metastasize. Equally damaging is the state's failure to differentiate between legitimate political dissent and armed rebellion. Baloch youth, academics and civil rights activists are often swept into the same security net as armed insurgents. The resulting alienation fuels resentment, creating a fertile ground for both radicalization and foreign manipulation. The case of imprisoned Mahrang Baloch, a civil rights advocate whose peaceful calls for justice have been met with suspicion and surveillance, illustrates this conflation. In the eyes of the Pakistani state, a protester with a placard is often indistinguishable from a militant with a gun. This securitized lens has not only delegitimized meaningful political dialogue but has also deprived Islamabad of moderate Baloch interlocutors capable of bridging the widening trust deficit. In this vacuum of political disengagement, external actors are pursuing their strategic interests. The less space Pakistan provides for peaceful negotiation and catharsis, the more attractive insurgency becomes, not just for disillusioned Baloch youth, but for global players seeking soft targets in their strategic contestations. Proxy wars, after all, do not require formal alliances; they merely need alignment of interests. And align they do. Baloch militants are disrupting China's economic vision, challenging Iran's border security and exposing Pakistan's internal fissures—all without implicating Western capitals in overt complicity. This is the new face of hybrid conflict: wars fought without declarations, allies backed without acknowledgment and casualties incurred without consequence. For Pakistan, the path forward requires more than military operations and international complaints. It demands an honest reckoning with its internal policies and external dependencies. Until the state distinguishes political grievances from armed rebellion, invests in inclusive governance and navigates its foreign partnerships with clarity and conviction, Balochistan will remain vulnerable – not just to insurgency, but to the invisible hands that steer it for great strategic interests. In the chessboard of 21st-century geopolitics, militancy is rarely merely a domestic affair. It is a mirror reflecting the ambitions of distant capitals. To ignore this is to mistake the symptom for the cause, and in doing so, to risk losing both the province and the peace in Balochistan.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store