Opinion

The CPC @105: Lessons for African Development and Political Leadership

Published

1 month ago

July 1, 2026

micheal

By Amjad M. Nyei

I studied in China from 2008 to 2016, attending universities in Jiangxi and Hubei Provinces—two regions closely associated with the Chinese Revolution that ultimately gave birth to the People’s Republic of China. Those eight years were both academically enriching and personally transformative. I witnessed firsthand the deep sense of patriotism among the Chinese people, as well as the respect they generally accorded to their governing institutions. Many of my classmates were committed members of the Communist Party of China (CPC) or actively participated in Party-related activities. The CPC’s presence was visible throughout university campuses. Red banners displaying educational slogans were common sights, carrying messages such as, “China’s Civilization Starts with Me,” “At the national level: Democracy, Civility, and Harmony; at the social level: Freedom, Equality, and Justice; at the individual level: Dedication, Integrity, and Friendliness.” These slogans constantly reminded citizens of their civic responsibilities while reinforcing the government’s commitment to national development and social cohesion.

One memorable experience during my stay in China was the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China at Nanchang University. The entire campus was filled with excitement, pride, and patriotism. Students devoted countless hours to rehearsing for the university’s grand gala, eager to contribute to the national celebration. On the evening of the event, the atmosphere was electric. The audience was treated to breathtaking cultural dances, moving poetry recitals, and theatrical performances depicting key moments of the Chinese Revolution. It was more than a celebration of history; it was a powerful expression of national identity and collective purpose. Witnessing such a profound display of unity and patriotism gave me a deeper appreciation of the values that have shaped modern China and continue to influence its remarkable development.

A party committed to state and its people has been diligently carrying out its responsibilities in spite numerous competing priorities.

A brief Historical Context and Modern Realities

The Chinese Communist Party (CPC) is the largest and one of the most powerful political organizations in the world and has played a crucial role in initiating most of the major reforms in China, especially during the period after 1970. Political party system is imported to China; the CPC is a Chinese cultural product: it is an entirely different breed of political party from those in the West. However, since the 1970s, reforms and open-door policy, the CPC has been enabled to accommodate various elements of democracy. This is termed, democracy with Chinese characteristics.

Founded in 1921 in the eastern Chinese city of Shanghai, the CPC has gone through dramatic transformation in its century of existence. With an initial membership of 53 people, the party has survived the political onslaughts of the KTM in the 1920s and 1930s and expanded drastically in subsequent decades¹. Under the astute leadership of leadership Mao Zedong, the CPC became the ruling party of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949.

The party can be credited for unification and sovereignty of the China- ending the decades-long warlordism and civil war; established a centralized state controlling the mainland. The CPC has pushed for institutional continuity- building durable party-state institutions, including, party committees, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and the bureaucracy which has governed a population over a billion for seven plus decades. More importantly asserting territorial integration has been of major achievement of the party, integrating (e.g., Tibet and Xinjiang) into the PRC control and negotiated the return of Hon Kong and Macau in 1997 and 1999 respectively.

Meanwhile, economic and transformation and development, as well as science and technology innovation has been on the double in China, all thanks to the intentional plans and reforms of the CPC. China has sustained rapid GDP growth and poverty reduction orchestrated through high-growth policies since the late 1970s that lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty. Industrialization and urbanization coupled with infrastructure built out has been strongly emphasised and implemented through competent structures of the CPC. China’s development journey is inseparable from the Party’s leadership. Over the past century, the Party has consistently renewed and strengthened itself, enabling it to lead the Chinese people through revolutions, construction and reform, and to usher in the historic achievements and transformations of the new era.

The CPC in 1921 vs the CPC in 2026: a Journey in Time

The Communist Party of China (CPC) has undergone one of the most remarkable transformations in modern political history. Organised by a small group of intellectuals and revolutionaries, the Party emerged during a period of profound national crisis characterized by political fragmentation, foreign intervention, and socioeconomic instability. With fewer than one hundred members at its inception, the CPC was primarily concerned with promoting Marxist ideology and mobilizing support for revolutionary change. Its early years were marked by political struggle, organizational development, and efforts to establish itself as a viable force within a rapidly changing China.

By contrast, the CPC of 2026 stands is the governing party of the People’s Republic of China and one of the largest political organizations in the world, with a membership exceeding one hundred million. Over the course of a century of existence, the Party evolved from an underground revolutionary movement into a highly institutionalized governing body responsible for administering the affairs of a nation of more than 1.4 billion people. Through successive historical phases—including the revolutionary era, socialist construction, reform and opening-up, and modernization—the CPC has adapted its policies and structures to address changing domestic and international realities while maintaining its central leadership role.

The differences between the CPC of 1921 and that of 2026 extend beyond scale and political influence. The Party’s principal objective in 1921 was the pursuit of revolutionary transformation and the overthrow of existing political structures. In 2026, however, its responsibilities encompass economic management, technological innovation, environmental sustainability, social governance, national security, and international affairs. China’s emergence as a major global economic and diplomatic actor has significantly expanded the Party’s role, requiring it to navigate complex challenges associated with globalization, development, and geopolitical competition.

Despite these profound changes, certain elements of continuity remain evident throughout the CPC’s historical journey. The Party continues to emphasize national development, political stability, and the pursuit of long-term strategic goals. While the CPC of 1921 sought to transform China through revolution, the CPC of 2026 seeks to advance national rejuvenation through governance and modernization. The century-long evolution from a small gathering of revolutionary activists to the leadership of a global power illustrates not only the adaptability of the Party but also the broader transformation of China itself, making the CPC’s development one of the most significant political narratives of modern times.

Western scholarship False Prediction of the CPC

A substantial body of Western political science literature has, at different intervals, forecasted the potential collapse or fragmentation of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Among the most cited voices in this baseless discourse are Gordon G. Chang, David Shambaugh, Roderick MacFarquhar, and Susan Shirk. Though differing in analytical depth and predictive certainty, their works collectively reflect a recurring “fragility thesis” in China studies—namely, that the structural contradictions of governance, economic imbalance, and elite political stress could culminate in regime breakdown. Gordon G. Chang’s 2001 argument remains the most direct collapse prediction, asserting that China’s entry into global capitalism would destabilize the Party-state and lead to imminent systemic failure. In contrast, Shambaugh and Shirk adopt more cautious tones, emphasizing erosion, fragility, and governance strain rather than immediate collapse.

David Shambaugh’s 2015 essay “The Coming Chinese Crackup,” argues that the CPC had entered a late-stage decline characterized by ideological decay, elite disunity, pervasive corruption, and diminishing governance capacity. While he later moderated his claims, Shambaugh maintained that the Chinese political model was not guaranteed indefinitely and that internal contradictions could eventually overwhelm institutional control. Susan Shirk similarly highlights the paradox of a strong yet brittle state, arguing that China’s centralized authority coexists with deep structural vulnerabilities, particularly in bureaucratic accountability, corruption control, and crisis responsiveness. Her analysis frames China as a “fragile superpower,” suggesting that external strength may conceal internal institutional stress. In today’s China, however, it is difficult that these arguments would be sustained. There has been massive improvement in the fight against corruption since President Xi took the helm of power in China. The Party has disciplined millions of officials and high-ranking elites to ensure the elimination of institutional graft. China has the quickest crisis responsiveness amongst the UNSC members. The 2008 devastating earthquake in Sichuan and the rapid response to the 2020 COVID-19 virus are evidence of China preparedness to combat challenges both at home and abroad. This speaks contrarily to Western criticism.

Another western writer on the issue is Roderick MacFarquhar. His contributions are more historical and structural than predictive, focusing on elite politics, ideological struggle, and the volatility of Maoist governance—especially during the Cultural Revolution period. His work underscores how factionalism, ideological radicalism, and leadership instability have historically threatened systemic coherence within the CPC. While MacFarquhar does not explicitly predict imminent collapse, his analysis of recurring elite conflict and ideological turbulence is often incorporated into broader arguments about regime fragility and potential systemic breakdown.

Despite these influential arguments, the contemporary reality of China in 2026 presents a striking counterpoint. Far from collapse, the CPC remains the central governing institution of a highly consolidated political system and the steward of the world’s second-largest economy. China has achieved sustained industrial upgrading, technological advancement in sectors such as artificial intelligence and green energy and expanded global economic influence through initiatives such as the Belt and Road framework. Politically, the CPC has strengthened internal discipline through extensive anti-corruption campaigns and reinforced centralized leadership under President Xi Jinping. Globally, China has emerged as a major strategic actor shaping trade networks, infrastructure investment, and multilateral diplomacy. This trajectory does not suggest systemic fragmentation, but adaptive resilience and institutional consolidation.

The juxtaposition between collapse-oriented scholarship and China’s contemporary trajectory highlights a central tension in political discourse: the difficulty of projecting the party-state durability systems undergoing rapid transformation. The CPC’s continued survival and expansion of state capacity suggest a more glaring reality- i.e., the purposeful leadership and rejuvenation agenda of the party and government. Rather than collapsing under internal contradictions, the Chinese political system has demonstrated a capacity for adaptation, institutional learning, and reform. This divergence between prediction and outcome underscores the importance of distinguishing between structural vulnerability and actual regime performance in comparative political analysis.

Lesson for African Development and Political Leadership

The developmental track record of the Communist Party OF China (CPC) offers a significant comparative reference for understanding state-led transformation in the Global South. From its emergence in 1921 to its consolidation of power and subsequent economic reforms, the CPC has demonstrated how long-term political continuity can shape developmental outcomes. For many African states, which continue to grapple with colonial legacies, institutional fragility, and uneven economic growth, China’s experience presents both an analytical model and a policy reference point. Scholars of comparative politics often highlight the importance of governance structures in explaining divergent development paths between East Asia and Africa.

A central lesson from the Chinese experience is the role of state capacity and political stability in enabling sustained development. The CPC has maintained a strong, centralized governing structure capable of implementing long-term development strategies with relatively high policy continuity. This has allowed China to pursue infrastructure expansion, industrialization, and poverty alleviation programs over multiple decades without major disruption. In contrast, many African countries face challenges of policy discontinuity due to electoral turnover, bureaucratic inefficiency, and political instability, and most recently, the wave of military takeovers. All of these put together hinder long-term planning and implementation. Strengthening institutions that ensure continuity in development planning may therefore be a critical priority for governance systems in Africa.

Another important lesson lies in China’s strategic use of state-led market reforms. Rather than adopting a rapid transition to liberal market capitalism, the CPC implemented gradual economic reforms under strong political control, particularly after 1978. This hybrid model enabled China to integrate into the global economy while maintaining domestic political stability and directing investment toward priority sectors such as infrastructure, manufacturing, and technology. For African economies, this suggests that selective state intervention—particularly in strategic sectors—may complement private sector development rather than oppose it. However, such an approach requires effective institutions, competent bureaucracy, and mechanisms to reduce corruption and inefficiency.

In conclusion, the Communist Party of China experience offers both practical insights and normative challenges for African development and political leadership. It underscores the importance of political stability, strategic planning, and strong state institutions in achieving sustained economic transformation. Contrary to West political thoughts and arguments, the CPC has no internal risk of collapse but strong well and determination to provide the basic needs for the state and people. For Africa, the most productive lesson is not imitation of the Chinese model, but the selective adaptation of its developmental strengths in ways that align with local political realities and democratic aspirations. This 105th anniversary of the CPC, come with greater opportunity for broader cooperation and for China-Africa cooperation within the framework of FOCAC and the Belt and Road Initiative.

Long live the CPC and the People of China.

Amjad M. Nyei is a China-trained scholar

Opinion

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE: FIVE YEARS AFTER

Published

20 hours ago

August 11, 2026

micheal

By Charles Onunaiju

It has been five years since China through the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) President Xi Jinping proposed the Global Development Initiative in his speech to the general assembly of the United Nations in 2021. In his speech, he highlighted the significance of the year for China. It was both the one-hundred-year anniversary, since the founding of the Communist Party of China (1921) and the 50^th anniversary of the restoration of China’s legitimate seat at the United Nations. The speech came against the background of the then, ravaging covid-19 pandemic and je observed that “Our world is facing the combined impacts of changes unseen in a century and the covid-19 pandemic.

The year also coincided with the China’s crucial policy outcome of the end of absolute poverty and a contribution of about 70% to global poverty reduction. On account of these, China brought her unique national experience in successful eradication of one of mankind’s most enduring scourge; poverty to the international domain. The elimination of absolute poverty has been an existential battle and from the time of the 18^th National Congress of the CPC and the election of Xi Jinping to the central leadership of the party and the country, the work on the poverty elimination became the core focus of the party and the state. And with an uncommon devotion, it won the battle and delivered the solemn pledge to the Chinese people to bring about moderate prosperity in all respects in the life of the people. With a reputation of the epic achievement, China’s pledge and commitment to help drain the swamp of global poverty is not empty or impulsive.

Therefore, when president Xi Jinping introduced the Global Development Initiative by way of offering Chinese experience and practical contribution to engaging issues of global development, the world took adequate notice. The structural inadequacy in the flow of international public goods, most evident in the decline of western development assistance to the developing countries especially in the Global South, produced a critical lacuna in global development outlook.

China emerging from the historic and epic defeat of extreme poverty stepped up to the global podium to bring the issue of inclusive and shared development to the sharp focus. The seminal initiative for inclusive global development focused on the then urgent imperative to contain and defeat the vile covid-19 pandemic and to put countries in better shape to recover from the after effects of the deadly virus. Vulnerable regions of the world including Africa where the virus was most disruptive of the socio-economic landscape were clearly brought to the core of the recovery efforts launched by Beijing under the framework of the Global Development Initiative. Food security and poverty alleviations were critical measures contained in the GDI framework to ameliorate the social and economic disruptions of the virus.

The GDI emphasizes development as a priority and closely aligns with the central task of implementing the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development of the United Nations. It aims to deepen cooperation and through specific projects, promote policy dialogue, experience sharing, capacity building and tangible cooperation in various fields and participation by all parties. The GDI embodies the earnest aspirations of the international community to coalesce and an extensive united front on the core issue, central to all mankind.

China’s successful practice of inclusive national development trajectory reveals the immense power of human will be supported by correct policy choices and driven by leadership suffused with integrity and competence. The vital clue from China is that inclusive and sustainable development is possible. The credibility of China national development practice, especially the epic defeat of poverty has tremendous global implication and consequently rallied broad consensus on the China’s proposed Global Development Initiative, GDI. Five years down the line, the initiative has evolved from a Chinese proposal into a major global public good attracting broad participation from the international community and delivering tangible benefits to ordinary people across the world. Up to now, more than 130 countries and international organizations have endorsed the GDI and participated in relevant cooperation programs, resulting in the implementation of 1,800 livelihood-oriented projects and the training of 200,000 people in various professions, costing over 23 billion U.S dollars of mobilized funds.

Over the past five years, China has widely shared the Juncao technology, which uses grass to cultivate edible fungi that has in no small measure helped to alleviate poverty, and also the sustainable satellite 1 that enables synchronized data sharing and the MAZU platform, a disaster monitoring and early warning system to support countries in the Global South improve disaster prevention and mitigation capabilities. The GDI is focused on people-centered. Inclusive, innovation driven and eco-friendly development principles and more importantly promote tangible outcomes.

The past five years have demonstrated the resulted oriented nature of the GDI and served as a beacon of hope for common development for all mankind. With the passage of time, the significance of the initiative is being felt by more countries in the world, especially in the Global South that strives earnestly to fill in their respective development gaps. At a tense moment in the international systems when few powers are busy with undermining the development of others through protectionism and geo-political confrontation, China has been steadfast pushing forward shared development through advancing the Global Development Initiative (GDI).

The principles of the GDI which is centered around inclusive and sustainable development partnership, mutual respect and win-win outcomes in cooperation are clearly different from ideologies that triggers geopolitical rivalry and seek unilateral gains.

In the past five years, China has launched more than 30 cooperation mechanisms and platforms to support Global South countries in enhancing their capabilities, thereby raising positive feelings towards China, across the world. According to the latest survey by the Pew Research Center, more people have a favorable view of China than the United States of America, in most of the 36 countries surveyed. People in many of the 17 middle-income countries surveyed see China as a more reliable partner than the United States and are more likely to say that China contributes to peace and stability around the world.

As its economy maintains high quality growth driven by innovation and greater openness, China continued to share significant opportunities for global development. Its innovations, such as open-source large language models, make new technologies affordable and drive shared development. Its cost-effective new energy products enrich global supply and promote green and low-carbon development.

Chinese manufacturing equipment exports and outbound investment help advance industrialization in developing countries, while cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative improves infrastructure in many partner countries and expands their potential for development.

The implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for sustainable development has been behind schedule. With less than five years left for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), only 36 percent of assessable SDG targets are on target or making moderate progress, nearly half are moving too slowly, while 15 percent have even gone into reverse.

The urgent need for common development among humanity underscores the pressing relevance of the GDI. As a member of the Global South and a major country, China has promised to align its growth with the common good of the world, and steadily advance the implementation of the GDI together with other countries for new progress in shared and sustainable development.

In the past five years, since the introduction of the GDI, China has stayed true to its commitments and it is no doubt, that Beijing would not waver in its pledges that the sunshine of shared development and its corollary of poverty alleviations is felt at every corner of the globe.

Opinion

TAIWAN’S HAN KUANG MILITARY DRILLS AND POLITICALLY MISCALCULATED SIMULATIONS

Published

4 days ago

August 8, 2026

micheal

By Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim

The rhetoretical questions always asked by President Xi Jinping are all-encompassing particularly within the framework of international relations and politics. “what is wrong with the world? Where are we coming from? Where are we now? And where are we headed to? Some of the complementary questions are: Why are states irrational? Why do states cause doom against their existence and why are experienced nations not influencing the inexperienced ones to be calm and choose the peaceful path?

These questions are trigered by the dumbness of Taiwanese leadership in continuing the annual Military Drills called Han Kuang which they started since April, 1984, by General Hau Pei-tsun, to test the joint combat readiness, command flexibility, and defense strategies against what Taiwan called “potential invasions from China.” In contemporary military strategy, there is no rationality, there is no intelligence and there is no in-depth calculation by Taiwan to dream of protecting itslf against China. China is not a threat to Taiwan, but reverse is the case, as Taiwanese leaders are fixated to be seperatists and conspire with external forces against China.

When Han Kuang (the annual Military Drills) started in 1984 as a comprehensive War game and field exercise for Taiwan’s armed forces, it focused initially on classic beach anti-landing, anti-airborne, and counter-air raid scenarios. It also established the core two-phase format: a spring computer-simulated Command Post Exercise (CPX) and subsequent Field Training Exercises (FTX).

This vision of pushing China back and creating a shield and a safety-net against China, integrated high-tech hardware additions like Patriot missile deployments starting around 2006 by Taiwan. It Shifted operational concepts to reflect shifting political and strategic defense doctrines under successive administrations and adopted bilingual command formats (Mandarin and English) by 2017 to improve joint clarity, all aimed at defeating China in case of an abrupt eruption of conflict.

Taiwan was further pushed to expanded drill duration significantly, moving from traditional 5-day windows to extended 10-day live-combat simulations, which also increased reserve force mobilization and from modern conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war. This has made Taiwan oblivious of the enormity of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict!

Due to continuous China-phobia developed by Taiwan in which external forces have informed Taiwan on the necessity to significantly prepare for war against China, it incorporated advanced mobile rocket systems (HIMARS) and decentralized command backbrief methods modeled on partner military frameworks, presumably that will protect them from China’s bid for reunification.

The next question is who has been behind Taiwan’s military ambition? Who has continued to sell weapons to Taiwan? Who has vowed to defend Taiwan in its quest to be permanently independent from China? Those behind the curtains are recently victims of their choice emanating from a war of choice and loosing from a strategy of choice. If the United States cannot protect itself in a modern warfare strategy, especially in its war with Iran, why should Taiwan continue to uphold provocative annual Military Drills that cannot protect them, but create more distance and disharmony from China’s efforts of peaceful reunification?

The United States has failed to achieve its strategic objectives and has faced outright defeat in Vietnam War, the War in Afghanistan, the Korean War (strategic stalemate), the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and the Lebanese Civil War intervention. The goal in Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism in Southeast Asia and protect South Vietnam, but high local resistance, a strong guerrilla insurgency, and low public support at home forced a U.S. withdrawal. North Vietnam took over the south in 1975.

The U.S. tried to destroy Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power after the September 11 attacks, but after 20 years of conflict and nation-building, the Western-backed government collapsed rapidly, and the Taliban returned to power during the chaotic U.S. military exit in August 2021. The U.S. goal in Korea was to expel North Korean forces from South Korea and unify the entire Korean Peninsula under a democratic government, but Chinese military intervention pushed U.S. and United Nations forces back, resulting in a bloody stalemate and an armistice that left the peninsula permanently divided.

The U.S. attempted to overthrow the communist government of Fidel Castro in Cuba using CIA-trained Cuban exiles, but the invasion was poorly planned, lacked expected U.S. air support, and was quickly crushed by Cuban armed forces, becoming a major Cold War embarrassment for Washington. The U.S. intended to restore political stability and peace during the Lebanese Civil War as part of a multinational peacekeeping force, but following the devastating 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. service members, the U.S. withdrew its military forces without achieving its stabilization goals.

The question remains, is it not irrational for Taiwan to continue with its annual Military Drills? Can the U.S. battling with shortage of Missiles and defensive capability salvage Taiwan in the period of war? Answers are self-providing for the wise.

In conclusion, it is recommended that Taiwan accepts China’s extended hand of peaceful reunification and desist from carrying out provocative Military Drills that will deteriorate the concurrent condition. It should divorce external tools of influence that sway its leadership to miscalculated risks and return to the mother land for good.

Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim is the Provost, Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria and Head of Contemporary China-Africa Research

Opinion

Presidency Defends Tinubu’s Reforms, Criticises Catholic Bishops’ Comments on National Issues

Published

1 week ago

August 4, 2026

Online

By Sunday Dare

The Presidency has defended the policies of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, accusing the leadership of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) of adopting what it described as a partisan stance in its recent public comments on national issues.

In an opinion article, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare, argued that religious leaders should maintain moral neutrality when engaging in political discourse. He said the bishops’ comments following a meeting with President Tinubu at the State House reflected opposition viewpoints rather than balanced national engagement.

Dare defended the administration’s economic reforms, including the removal of petrol subsidy and the unification of the foreign exchange market, describing them as necessary measures to address fiscal challenges inherited by the government in 2023.

He also cited increased allocations to states, reforms in public finance, the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND), agricultural interventions and ongoing infrastructure projects as evidence of progress under the Tinubu administration.

The presidential aide further criticised comments attributed to Archbishop Emeritus John Cardinal Onaiyekan regarding governance and the 2027 elections, maintaining that President Tinubu remained committed to democratic principles and institutional integrity.

The article urged religious leaders to contribute constructive solutions to national challenges while preserving their independence from partisan politics.

The views expressed in the article are those of the author, who serves as Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications.