Victory Must Be Absolute

Secure power first, everything else comes later. A leader can only afford magnanimity when their position isn't on the line.

Perhaps the worst consequence of the hegemony of liberal ideas is the inability to recognize and anticipate the exercise of raw, uncompromising power—even when all signs point clearly in that direction.

This intellectual blind spot, born from idealistic assumptions about published opinion, the need for consensus and institutional constraints, repeatedly leaves observers shocked by what should have been obvious.

One episode that saw this in play was the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 2022. Xi Jinping's firm grip on power caught most China watchers off guard. Many expected him to throw a bone to rival factions—maybe hand out a few key positions as a gesture of goodwill.

Instead, he steamrolled the opposition and filled the Central Committee and Politburo with loyalists, and brought us the scene of Hu Jintao removed from the camera under still unclear circumstances. 

But such expectations failed to acknowledge the fundamental political reality Xi faced. Why would someone who had already secured near-total control over the party—and dismantled his rivals' power bases—choose to give any of that up?

Speculation around incorporating moderate technocrats, or even keeping around Li Keqiang's in some capacity illustrates this point perfectly. With his own support base, popularity and political profile, Li was exactly the kind of figure Xi wouldn’t want to keep around. In this kind of political environment, people like Li aren't allies to be included—they're threats to be neutralized.

The expectation that Xi would include opposition forces—especially during a pandemic with his controversial and socially costly Zero-COVID policy in place—stems from a moralistic belief that power must be exercised with magnanimity, that acknowledging errors confers moral high ground rather than ammunition for opponents, and that appearances matter more than control.

The idea that Xi would share power or show magnanimity just for appearances doesn't hold up. What would he gain by appeasing Western media, who'd just spin it as a sign that "reformers" were gaining traction or that Xi was losing control? When has he ever cared what Western or any other media think? That kind of PR logic just doesn't apply here. 

The key difference between Xi and most foreign commentators—myself included—is that he's the one with skin in the game. Especially in China's unforgiving political ecosystem, he understands power dynamics far better than those commenting from the sidelines.

By refusing to create space for potential challengers, he eliminated vulnerabilities that could later be exploited. Ego may play a role here, but this wasn't just about personal vanity, it was about survival.

Now, Xi's approach doesn't come without shortcomings. The succession question remains unresolved, because Xi knows there is little chance he can safely step away from power. And when you've cleared the room of challengers, you risk ending up surrounded by yes-men who don't push back even when something clearly isn't working.

Does it mean that compromise should always be refused? No. A good leader knows when compromise is necessary or when a complex coalition requires management. But compromising when unnecessary can be as damaging as refusing to compromise when needed.

It is a common pattern in successful leadership to begin compromising when one's personal power base is still weak, and then slowly play different internal factions against each other to consolidate authority until compromise becomes optional—as Xi himself did.

In the business of power, decisive action often proves more effective than half-measures. Xi's total victory over rival factions wasn't merely personal ambition at work. It was a strategy to keep a stable leadership to move forward with a plan of deep economic and geopolitical restructuring.

Risky structural changes, like bursting a real estate bubble, reshaping global trade dynamics or shifting a decades-long business model in a company, must be executed from a position of strength. Compromise here may later prove costly. And sure, that comes with the danger of groupthink, but from a leadership point of view, the bigger danger is losing control altogether.

The lesson is clear: consolidate power first. Everything else comes after. A leader can only afford magnanimity when their position isn't on the line.

No one gets policy 100% right the first time. Some specific measures with proven success can be implemented immediately, but any transformative or emergency response will need tweaking. You try something, you adjust. One step back, two steps forward. 

But you can only do that safely once your grip on power is secure. A leader can only afford pragmatism or magnanimity when doing so doesn't translate into a direct challenge to their position. Leaders under pressure, devote all attention to preserving power rather than refining policy.  They only care about survival. 

We saw that after the Congress. Xi eventually adopted policies more associated with his opponents. Most notably, ending the Zero-COVID policy following the White Paper protests —but again, only after suppressing them— and recompensing Hu Jintao's son with a higher position.

This is what many analysts miss nowadays, especially in the West. They're trained to look at symbolism, headlines, and the way actions play out in public debate. And that makes sense as those things do still matter to a certain extent. But sometimes, a raw display of power cuts through all the noise and reminds us how politics really works.

In a time of “great changes unseen in a century,” as China's CEO would put it, we will see incentives and even a popular mandate for strong leaderships that take swift action to address the mounting challenges that advanced societies are facing

Their decisions might not always be right or bring positive outcomes, but they will be much more willing to take the gamble things than preserving a crumbling status quo. Between looking good or looking tough, many will decide for the later. 

Xi's uncompromising actions may have shocked some at the moment, but they followed a timeless political maxim: when achievable victory must be absolute.