China’s focus on getting its house in order offers lessons in governance

The Communist Party’s call for “self-revolution” may be rooted in the pursuit of internal discipline, but its implications extend well beyond China. As the global order faces mounting challenges, Beijing’s emphasis on internal renewal raises a fundamental question: can countries hope to contribute to global stability without first putting their own houses in order?

China’s fifth plenum placed considerable emphasis on combating corruption. Beijing has relentlessly pursued its campaign against both high-ranking “tigers” and lower-level “flies”, resulting in the downfall of officials across the party and state apparatus.

The concept of self-revolution marks an important evolution in this approach. Rather than relying on sporadic anti-corruption purges, the Communist Party seeks to institutionalise an ongoing process of internal renewal, strict accountability and political discipline.

At its core, this strategy aims to fortify party discipline and correct institutional weaknesses. Critics, however, view the campaign primarily as a mechanism for consolidating President Xi Jinping’s authority ahead of the next party congress, where he is expected to seek another term. Both interpretations deserve serious consideration.

China’s one-party system is an institutional outlier in the 21st century. Western critics question whether a political system devoid of multiparty competition can hold itself accountable. Liberal democracy rests on external checks and balances: the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and a free press are designed to guard against abuses of power.

03:00

China’s fifth plenum focuses on discipline and loyalty to Xi

Yet, are liberal democracies more effective at fighting corruption? Multiparty elections do not inherently guarantee clean government. Many democracies remain plagued by systemic corruption, while money politics allows wealthy individuals and powerful interest groups to exert disproportionate influence over the legislative process.

Critics of the American system argue that multibillion-dollar campaigns have reduced elections to a playground for political mega-donors. Regional examples highlight similar struggles: in Malaysia, three former prime ministers have been imprisoned or faced sweeping corruption charges. Corruption remains a global malaise afflicting states across the ideological spectrum.

Liberal democracy, therefore, holds no monopoly on good governance. While China’s system lacks the institutional safeguards found in the West, its commitment to internal reform and self-correction should not be dismissed outright. Internal oversight is no guarantee of success, just as external checks do not automatically prevent institutional decay.

If China can show that its approach delivers sustained, meaningful results, other nations would do well to study its experience.

Furthermore, there is a deeper philosophical dimension to the Communist Party’s emphasis on self-revolution that resonates with a long-standing Confucian principle: the cultivation and correction of the self must precede the ordering of society.

01:36

Former PLA generals expelled from China’s Communist Party for factionalism and disloyalty

In the Confucian tradition, moral and social order begins with self-cultivation. If individuals and institutions cannot rectify their own conduct, external supervision alone will prove insufficient. The philosophy is captured in a simple proposition: before seeking to put the world in order, one must first put one’s house in order.

This world view also cautions against prescribing solutions for others without first examining one’s shortcomings. The Chinese notion of concentric circles of responsibility envisages change beginning with the individual, extending to the family and community, and moving outwards to the nation and the wider world. The journey towards global transformation begins at home.

This paradigm directly shapes China’s foreign policy and its aspirations for global leadership. The international order is undergoing a profound transition, with the centre of gravity in global affairs increasingly shifting towards Asia. Consequently, Beijing is offering alternative visions of global governance through its Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative, Global Civilisation Initiative and Global Governance Initiative.

Yet, Beijing recognises that its international ambitions must be underpinned by domestic efficacy. This logic was front and centre at the recent fifth plenary session, where the party explicitly linked “rigorous self-governance” with China’s capacity to successfully navigate global turbulence.

07:23

Xi Jinping urges SCO summit members’ cooperation and the setting up of a development bank

This reflects a foundational principle in China’s understanding of leadership: one must lead by example. Beijing’s white paper on global governance anchors this logic by demanding “real actions” and functional accountability from major powers. Ultimately, the text advances the premise that a state cannot credibly shape international governance without first displaying the ability to govern itself.

This lesson is highly relevant to the West today. While conflicts between nation-states continue to undermine international peace, the escalating political polarisation and domestic turmoil within major Western powers are simultaneously weakening the foundations of the international order.

Ongoing political gridlock in the United States, alongside the sweeping social upheavals and violent clashes that have gripped France, Italy and Germany in recent weeks, vividly illustrate how internal crises can paralyse countries that have traditionally anchored the global system.

02:49

Chinese internet users weigh in on French protests

The threats to the global order, therefore, do not come solely from external adversaries; they emerge from within. Nation-states cannot credibly champion international peace, stability and good governance while neglecting systemic divisions at home.

The Communist Party’s call for self-revolution carries a message that transcends its political system. It challenges the dogmatic assumption that any single model of governance holds a monopoly on political efficacy. More importantly, it serves as a stark reminder that domestic renewal is inseparable from international responsibility.

China’s approach offers no ironclad guarantee of success, and its reliance on internal oversight remains open to legitimate scrutiny. But it should not be dismissed out of hand simply because it diverges from the Western democratic template. If China succeeds in translating self-revolution into more effective governance and sustained progress, the wider world will have much to learn.

Ultimately, whether in Beijing, Washington or Brussels, the pursuit of global peace must begin at home. Before seeking to change the world, countries must first be prepared to change themselves.