Xi Jinping
The Great Hall of the People in Beijing. The building hosts China’s national legislature under Xi Jinping.
Narrative
Xi Jinping rose to power pledging to stamp out corruption, but his campaign quickly became a way to consolidate authority around himself. Surveillance deepened, space for dissent narrowed, and the abolition of term limits in 2018 signaled the arrival of a new era of one-man rule. The Party under Xi Jinping presented stability and prosperity, but it came at the cost of silencing whole communities, from feminists to ethnic minorities in Xinjiang and Tibet.
Large-scale defiance wasn’t absent. Millions marched in Hong Kong in 2019, workers staged strikes, and activists tried to preserve online discussion spaces despite censorship. These moments revealed a deep well of civic imagination that couldn’t be fully contained by Beijing’s tightening grip.
More often, resistance took subtler forms. In some circles, people shared sensitive books or coded memes through encrypted apps, artists wove allegory into theater and painting, and families quietly passed down traditions the state tried to erase. Even when invisible to outsiders, these everyday acts carried forward lives outside the official script.
Core story & context
General audience
- Louisa Lim, *The People’s Republic of Amnesia*
- Megha Rajagopalan, reporting on Xinjiang
In depth / scholarly
- Elizabeth Economy, *The Third Revolution*
- Minxin Pei, works on authoritarian resilience in China
Everyday / hidden resistance
General audience
- Chan Kin-man, writings from the Umbrella Movement
- Citizen Lab, reports on digital circumvention in China
In depth / scholarly
- Kevin O’Brien, studies on “rightful resistance” in rural China
- Works on feminist resistance in contemporary China
No images available for this entry.
A just society requires citizens who dare to speak the truth.
Freedom, equality, and human rights are universal values.
Patterns of Repression
Turning Wealth into Power
How does wealth get converted into power over others? ›
There is nothing natural that says people with more money should automatically have greater influence over laws, institutions, or collective decisions. Yet much of the modern world is organized this way. If this relationship did not arise by accident, how was it built—and why has it been so durable?
The idea that wealth naturally produces power is a historical construction, not a universal truth. Over time, legal, ideological, economic, and military strategies were used to bind material advantage to political authority. This section identifies recurring patterns through which wealth has been converted into lasting power—patterns that helped entrench inequality across different cultures, systems, and eras.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) asserted authority over major firms and financiers. Private companies were required to align with party priorities through internal CCP committees and leadership oversight.
Party ControlCorporate SubordinationPolitical AlignmentAnti-corruption campaigns reshaped elite wealth and loyalty. Investigations removed rivals and warned business leaders that assets depended on political obedience.
Elite DisciplineSelective EnforcementPower ConsolidationRegulatory crackdowns redirected capital away from independent power centers. Technology, finance, and education firms were targeted to curb influence outside party control.
Regulatory InterventionMarket ReorderingAuthority EnforcementState-owned enterprises regained strategic priority. Public firms became central vehicles for employment, infrastructure, and political objectives.
State Enterprise PrimacyStrategic IndustriesCentral PlanningSurveillance and data systems reinforced economic and social control. Digital monitoring tied employment, finance, and movement to political compliance.
Data StateSurveillance InfrastructureBehavioral GovernanceNationalist narratives framed party dominance as stability and renewal. Economic discipline was presented as necessary for national strength and unity.
Ideological LegitimationNarrative ControlAuthoritarian Stability
Why Inequality Persists
How does concentrated wealth contribute to widespread poverty? ›
This question connects directly to how wealth becomes power. For wealth to keep compounding and retaining influence, inequality has to persist. If large numbers of people were economically secure and independent, concentrated wealth would lose much of its leverage. This section looks at the recurring ways power maintains imbalance—by limiting security, narrowing options, or keeping people dependent—so that wealth continues to translate into influence.
Chinese Communist Party authorities restricted independent labor organizing and reinforced state-controlled unions. Workers lacked bargaining power while wages lagged productivity in many sectors.
Anti Union MeasuresWage SuppressionLabor ControlState-led restructuring transferred public assets and market access to favored firms aligned with party priorities. Private entrepreneurs faced abrupt crackdowns and loss of control.
State Asset CaptureParty Control Of MarketsSelective EnforcementFiscal and regulatory policies prioritized industrial upgrading and security over social spending growth. Rural and migrant communities bore the cost through reduced services and protections.
Developmental PrioritySocial Spending ConstraintRural InequalityLocal governments seized land and housing through redevelopment and debt-driven projects. Displacement removed livelihoods and limited legal recourse.
Land ExpropriationForced DisplacementProperty Rights ErosionSecurity agencies detained ethnic minorities, activists, and critics under counterextremism and public order campaigns. Detention disrupted families and imposed lasting economic harm.
Mass DetentionEthnic RepressionFamily DisruptionThe party-state expanded censorship and surveillance while placing digital platforms behind regulatory and financial barriers. Independent information became risky or costly to access and share.
Information ControlDigital CensorshipPaywalls On Knowledge
Tools of Power
What common methods do power holders use to undermine democracy? ›
Across eras and cultures, individuals and institutions seeking to concentrate power tend to draw from a familiar toolkit—religious authority, media control, philanthropy, corporate monopolies, populist politics. While these methods differ in style and justification, their recurring effect is to weaken democratic limits on concentrated power.
Xi Jinping consolidated power within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) by weakening collective leadership norms, elevating loyalists, and placing party committees above state, legal, and economic institutions, concentrating decision-making at the top.
Party CentralizationPersonalist RuleInstitutional SubordinationAnti-corruption drives were used to investigate, remove, or sideline rivals and enforce loyalty across the party and state, combining genuine corruption enforcement with selective prosecution as a tool of control.
Disciplinary EnforcementSelective ProsecutionElite ControlDigital platforms, data systems, and surveillance technologies were expanded to monitor behavior, manage dissent, and enforce compliance, integrating technology firms and local authorities into a broad system of social and political control.
Digital SurveillanceTech Enabled GovernancePopulation Monitoring
Who Makes This Possible
Who enables the concentration of power? ›
Behind each of the concepts listed here are people and institutions making decisions to go along with—and in some cases actively strengthen—the drift toward authoritarianism. These enablers may not always be the public face of setting policy, but their financial, legal, and decision-making contributions make concentrated power possible. Their choices are often shaped by fear, loyalty, ideology, convenience, or the promise of personal or institutional gain.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s ruling political organization, asserted its primacy over courts, media, and government agencies. Party officials enforced discipline and removed rivals, allowing Xi to centralize authority.
Party SupremacyInstitutional CaptureElite DisciplineThe People’s Liberation Army (PLA), China’s armed forces under party control, pledged loyalty directly to the CCP leadership. Military commanders reinforced Xi’s authority rather than acting as an independent institution.
Military LoyaltyParty ArmyCoercive BackingState-owned enterprises and major private firms aligned with party priorities. Business leaders accepted political oversight in exchange for market access, protection, and growth.
State Capital AllianceCorporate AlignmentEconomic ComplianceCourts, prosecutors, and regulators followed party direction, limiting legal challenges and reducing independent checks on executive power.
Legal SubordinationJudicial AlignmentAccountability ConstraintsPropaganda and censorship agencies controlled news, education, and online speech, shaping public discussion and limiting organized dissent.
Information ControlCensorshipNarrative Management
How People Are Brought Along
How do those in power generate and maintain public compliance? ›
Power rarely lasts through force alone. This section looks at the recurring ways leaders and systems secured compliance—by combining fear, rewards, narratives, institutional control, and social division. Under these conditions, going along often became the safest or most practical choice, even for those who disagreed.
Party rhetoric framed national survival and modernization as inseparable from leadership by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), delegitimizing political alternatives by definition.
Party LegitimationHistorical Necessity FramingMonopoly Of AuthorityThe National Security Law and related enforcement measures criminalized dissent and reorganized public life in Hong Kong, signaling the costs of political noncompliance.
Legal RepressionDeterrent EnforcementTerritorial ControlThe Chinese Communist Party (CCP) asserted primacy over courts, the military, and state administration, subordinating formal institutions to party discipline.
Party State FusionInstitutional CaptureCentralized ControlState messaging promoted the 'Chinese Dream' as a unifying narrative of national rejuvenation, aligning personal aspiration with CCP-defined goals.
National Rejuvenation NarrativeIdeological AlignmentSymbolic LegitimationCadre promotion, evaluation, and discipline systems rewarded loyalty and compliance, binding political careers to adherence to CCP central directives.
Cadre ManagementPatronage DisciplineCareer DependencyDigital surveillance and data-driven governance expanded monitoring of social behavior, encouraging self-censorship and anticipatory compliance.
Digital SurveillanceAnticipatory ComplianceBehavioral Governance
How It Was Justified
How do those seeking power frame and justify their actions? ›
Dominant figures seeking to consolidate power rarely present their actions as naked self-interest or coercion. Instead, they rely on stories that make what they are doing seem lawful, necessary, benevolent, or inevitable. This section examines the recurring ways these figures framed their actions to the public—through claims of legitimacy, promises of protection or progress, appeals to fear, or the erasure of alternatives. Where possible, it includes representative quotes or slogans that capture these justifications in their own words.
Xi Jinping has framed his leadership around the idea of the “Chinese Dream,” presenting national success as a shared aspiration of prosperity, strength, and pride. Economic growth, technological advancement, and tighter political control were described as part of a collective journey, making limits on speech, surveillance, and party discipline appear like necessary sacrifices for a better future rather than political choices that narrowed personal freedom.
Chinese DreamCollective FutureLegitimacy Through ProsperityXi Jinping has repeatedly argued that China is undergoing a period of national rejuvenation after a long history of humiliation and weakness. This framing tied territorial claims, military modernization, and centralized authority to historical correction, casting dissent and pluralism as distractions or threats to China’s rightful return to global prominence.
National RejuvenationHistorical GrievancePower ConsolidationThe Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping has framed stability as the foundation of national success. Social control, censorship, and repression were presented as practical tools to prevent chaos, unrest, or foreign interference, treating obedience and conformity as safeguards for prosperity rather than as enforced limits on political participation.
Stability ClaimSocial ControlOrder Over Dissent
Turning Wealth into Power
How does wealth get converted into power over others? ›
There is nothing natural that says people with more money should automatically have greater influence over laws, institutions, or collective decisions. Yet much of the modern world is organized this way. If this relationship did not arise by accident, how was it built—and why has it been so durable?
The idea that wealth naturally produces power is a historical construction, not a universal truth. Over time, legal, ideological, economic, and military strategies were used to bind material advantage to political authority. This section identifies recurring patterns through which wealth has been converted into lasting power—patterns that helped entrench inequality across different cultures, systems, and eras.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) asserted authority over major firms and financiers. Private companies were required to align with party priorities through internal CCP committees and leadership oversight.
Anti-corruption campaigns reshaped elite wealth and loyalty. Investigations removed rivals and warned business leaders that assets depended on political obedience.
Regulatory crackdowns redirected capital away from independent power centers. Technology, finance, and education firms were targeted to curb influence outside party control.
State-owned enterprises regained strategic priority. Public firms became central vehicles for employment, infrastructure, and political objectives.
Surveillance and data systems reinforced economic and social control. Digital monitoring tied employment, finance, and movement to political compliance.
Nationalist narratives framed party dominance as stability and renewal. Economic discipline was presented as necessary for national strength and unity.
Why Inequality Persists
How does concentrated wealth contribute to widespread poverty? ›
This question connects directly to how wealth becomes power. For wealth to keep compounding and retaining influence, inequality has to persist. If large numbers of people were economically secure and independent, concentrated wealth would lose much of its leverage. This section looks at the recurring ways power maintains imbalance—by limiting security, narrowing options, or keeping people dependent—so that wealth continues to translate into influence.
Chinese Communist Party authorities restricted independent labor organizing and reinforced state-controlled unions. Workers lacked bargaining power while wages lagged productivity in many sectors.
State-led restructuring transferred public assets and market access to favored firms aligned with party priorities. Private entrepreneurs faced abrupt crackdowns and loss of control.
Fiscal and regulatory policies prioritized industrial upgrading and security over social spending growth. Rural and migrant communities bore the cost through reduced services and protections.
Local governments seized land and housing through redevelopment and debt-driven projects. Displacement removed livelihoods and limited legal recourse.
Security agencies detained ethnic minorities, activists, and critics under counterextremism and public order campaigns. Detention disrupted families and imposed lasting economic harm.
The party-state expanded censorship and surveillance while placing digital platforms behind regulatory and financial barriers. Independent information became risky or costly to access and share.
Tools of Power
What common methods do power holders use to undermine democracy? ›
Across eras and cultures, individuals and institutions seeking to concentrate power tend to draw from a familiar toolkit—religious authority, media control, philanthropy, corporate monopolies, populist politics. While these methods differ in style and justification, their recurring effect is to weaken democratic limits on concentrated power.
Xi Jinping consolidated power within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) by weakening collective leadership norms, elevating loyalists, and placing party committees above state, legal, and economic institutions, concentrating decision-making at the top.
Anti-corruption drives were used to investigate, remove, or sideline rivals and enforce loyalty across the party and state, combining genuine corruption enforcement with selective prosecution as a tool of control.
Digital platforms, data systems, and surveillance technologies were expanded to monitor behavior, manage dissent, and enforce compliance, integrating technology firms and local authorities into a broad system of social and political control.
Who Makes This Possible
Who enables the concentration of power? ›
Behind each of the concepts listed here are people and institutions making decisions to go along with—and in some cases actively strengthen—the drift toward authoritarianism. These enablers may not always be the public face of setting policy, but their financial, legal, and decision-making contributions make concentrated power possible. Their choices are often shaped by fear, loyalty, ideology, convenience, or the promise of personal or institutional gain.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s ruling political organization, asserted its primacy over courts, media, and government agencies. Party officials enforced discipline and removed rivals, allowing Xi to centralize authority.
The People’s Liberation Army (PLA), China’s armed forces under party control, pledged loyalty directly to the CCP leadership. Military commanders reinforced Xi’s authority rather than acting as an independent institution.
State-owned enterprises and major private firms aligned with party priorities. Business leaders accepted political oversight in exchange for market access, protection, and growth.
Courts, prosecutors, and regulators followed party direction, limiting legal challenges and reducing independent checks on executive power.
Propaganda and censorship agencies controlled news, education, and online speech, shaping public discussion and limiting organized dissent.
How People Are Brought Along
How do those in power generate and maintain public compliance? ›
Power rarely lasts through force alone. This section looks at the recurring ways leaders and systems secured compliance—by combining fear, rewards, narratives, institutional control, and social division. Under these conditions, going along often became the safest or most practical choice, even for those who disagreed.
Party rhetoric framed national survival and modernization as inseparable from leadership by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), delegitimizing political alternatives by definition.
The National Security Law and related enforcement measures criminalized dissent and reorganized public life in Hong Kong, signaling the costs of political noncompliance.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) asserted primacy over courts, the military, and state administration, subordinating formal institutions to party discipline.
State messaging promoted the 'Chinese Dream' as a unifying narrative of national rejuvenation, aligning personal aspiration with CCP-defined goals.
Cadre promotion, evaluation, and discipline systems rewarded loyalty and compliance, binding political careers to adherence to CCP central directives.
Digital surveillance and data-driven governance expanded monitoring of social behavior, encouraging self-censorship and anticipatory compliance.
How It Was Justified
How do those seeking power frame and justify their actions? ›
Dominant figures seeking to consolidate power rarely present their actions as naked self-interest or coercion. Instead, they rely on stories that make what they are doing seem lawful, necessary, benevolent, or inevitable. This section examines the recurring ways these figures framed their actions to the public—through claims of legitimacy, promises of protection or progress, appeals to fear, or the erasure of alternatives. Where possible, it includes representative quotes or slogans that capture these justifications in their own words.
Xi Jinping has framed his leadership around the idea of the “Chinese Dream,” presenting national success as a shared aspiration of prosperity, strength, and pride. Economic growth, technological advancement, and tighter political control were described as part of a collective journey, making limits on speech, surveillance, and party discipline appear like necessary sacrifices for a better future rather than political choices that narrowed personal freedom.
Xi Jinping has repeatedly argued that China is undergoing a period of national rejuvenation after a long history of humiliation and weakness. This framing tied territorial claims, military modernization, and centralized authority to historical correction, casting dissent and pluralism as distractions or threats to China’s rightful return to global prominence.
The Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping has framed stability as the foundation of national success. Social control, censorship, and repression were presented as practical tools to prevent chaos, unrest, or foreign interference, treating obedience and conformity as safeguards for prosperity rather than as enforced limits on political participation.
Patterns of Resistance
How people resist
What forms of resistance, refusal, or counter-power emerged in response to this system? ›
People responded in a variety of ways, including organized movements, cultural or symbolic resistance, economic pressure, legal challenges, international actions, or everyday forms of refusal.
These responses did not necessarily share goals, methods, or outcomes. They are grouped here to show recurring patterns of resistance.
Residents organized localized protests over land seizures, housing demolitions, unpaid wages, environmental damage, and pandemic controls. Actions included petitions, sit-ins, work stoppages, and street demonstrations that focused on specific grievances rather than national coordination.
Localized ProtestGrievance Based ResistanceEveryday Collective Actionland_expropriationlabor_exploitationpublic_order_policingChinese-language media and civil society groups operating outside mainland China documented repression, censorship, and rights violations. These diaspora-based outlets archived reporting and analysis that was restricted or removed inside the country.
Diaspora MediaExternal DocumentationInformation Preservationmedia_censorshipinformation_controltransnational_pressureVillage-level elections and local consultative mechanisms provided limited channels for participation in some rural areas. These processes allowed constrained forms of accountability but remained subject to party oversight and intervention.
Limited Electoral MechanismsLocal ParticipationConstrained Accountabilityparty_centralizationadministrative_controlpolitical_screening
How long change took
How long did resistance persist, and what eventually changed the balance of power? ›
Resistance unfolds over time, gradually producing shifts in how power operates. Change may appear through partial reform, constraint, replacement, or ongoing contestation, sometimes beginning at local or limited scales before spreading more widely.
2012–2017:
Xi Jinping assumed top leadership roles within the Chinese Communist Party and the state. Authority consolidated through party discipline campaigns, organizational restructuring, and expanded oversight of media and civil society.
Party ConsolidationDiscipline CampaignsOrganizational Control2018–2020:
Constitutional changes removed presidential term limits, extending leadership tenure. Governance emphasized centralized party authority across state institutions, with increased use of technology and regulation to manage society.
Term Limit RemovalCentralized GovernanceTechnological Management2020–present:
Centralized decision-making continued amid pandemic governance, expanded national security law enforcement, and intensified control over information and dissent. External pressure and domestic enforcement measures shaped governance without altering the core leadership structure.
Security State ExpansionInformation ControlOngoing Contestation
How people resist
What forms of resistance, refusal, or counter-power emerged in response to this system? ›
People responded in a variety of ways, including organized movements, cultural or symbolic resistance, economic pressure, legal challenges, international actions, or everyday forms of refusal.
These responses did not necessarily share goals, methods, or outcomes. They are grouped here to show recurring patterns of resistance.
Residents organized localized protests over land seizures, housing demolitions, unpaid wages, environmental damage, and pandemic controls. Actions included petitions, sit-ins, work stoppages, and street demonstrations that focused on specific grievances rather than national coordination.
Chinese-language media and civil society groups operating outside mainland China documented repression, censorship, and rights violations. These diaspora-based outlets archived reporting and analysis that was restricted or removed inside the country.
Village-level elections and local consultative mechanisms provided limited channels for participation in some rural areas. These processes allowed constrained forms of accountability but remained subject to party oversight and intervention.
How long change took
How long did resistance persist, and what eventually changed the balance of power? ›
Resistance unfolds over time, gradually producing shifts in how power operates. Change may appear through partial reform, constraint, replacement, or ongoing contestation, sometimes beginning at local or limited scales before spreading more widely.
2012–2017:
Xi Jinping assumed top leadership roles within the Chinese Communist Party and the state. Authority consolidated through party discipline campaigns, organizational restructuring, and expanded oversight of media and civil society.
2018–2020:
Constitutional changes removed presidential term limits, extending leadership tenure. Governance emphasized centralized party authority across state institutions, with increased use of technology and regulation to manage society.
2020–present:
Centralized decision-making continued amid pandemic governance, expanded national security law enforcement, and intensified control over information and dissent. External pressure and domestic enforcement measures shaped governance without altering the core leadership structure.
No music available for this entry.