China's Politicised Military Leadership Risks Battlefield Collapse

China's PLA suffers from politicised leadership, lacking combat experience, risking strategic failures despite technological advancements and ambitious global military posturing.

- MAJ GEN DEEPAK MEHRA (RETD) & SUNANDINI

With the evolving world and technology, the modern battlefields necessitate technology backed by trained numeric strength who are led by adaptable, decisive and experienced military leadership.

The People's Liberation Army (PLA) in China is often portrayed to be amongst the formidable forces of the world. It is perceived to be equipped with cutting-edge technology, rapid modernisation and perpetually expanding global presence.

However, a deeper analysis and beneath this veneer of strength lies a structural weakness because of its politicised leadership.

The PLA is tightly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), prioritizing ideological loyalty over professional merit which secures regime security.

Nevertheless, during high-intensity conflict this might result in military inefficiency and failure.

Politicisation of PLA and Anti-Corruption Purges

The politicisation of PLA holds a historical legacy as it has been the armed wing of CCP rather than National Military Force.

Unlike other militaries of the world which swear allegiance to the state, PLA's primary duty remains to safeguard the Communist Party's regime.

This is rooted in Mao Zedong's doctrine of "the Party commands the gun" which is deeply manifested in China's political structure and further translated in military promotions, strategic decisions and operational capability.

The higher leadership in the PLA is often rewarded as a result of ardent loyalty which has led to risks of ideological purity over military competence.

Adding on, President Xi Jinping's anti-corruption purges have further exaggerated this issue.

While these purges were aimed to root out graft, they have been more often used to remove potential rivals leading to senior commanders fighting for political survival than military effectiveness.