Purge vs Poll: Xi’s Iron Grip Meets Taiwan’s Voter Grit
By Meng Kit Tang | 25 November 2025
The Chinese Communist Party’s purges and Taiwan’s recall elections show two different systems of control. One works from the top down, the other from the bottom up. In November 2025, the Fourth Plenum’s ouster of 11 Central Committee members, including senior PLA figures, tightened Xi Jinping’s hold amid GDP stagnation. Across the Strait, Taiwan’s Great Recall Wave saw thirty-one failed attempts to remove Kuomintang (KMT) legislators. The result exposed a democracy that is proud yet weary.
Both sides of the Strait claim to strengthen their systems, yet both struggle with distrust. China uses purges to preserve loyalty. Taiwan uses recalls to demand accountability. Each method carries hidden costs. Authoritarian discipline can hollow out competence. Democratic activism can turn into exhaustion.
This essay explores how both societies handle dissent, how foreign pressures deepen their struggles, and how control often reveals weakness more than stability.
CCP Purges: Authoritarian Logic
Xi Jinping’s purge campaign reflects his fear of disloyalty. The October 2025 removal of Politburo member He Weidong and eight senior generals went beyond corruption clean-up. It was a pre-Plenum strike to crush rival factions and remind elites who holds power. Economic stagnation and youth unemployment above 16 percent have eroded confidence. Xi has responded by reshuffling state firms and the military to tighten control and channel resources into technology and defence. The 15th Five-Year Plan now prioritizes artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and military modernization.
The army has suffered most. Since 2012, more than 120 officers have been purged, including top commanders from the Eastern Theater Command, which leads Taiwan operations. The fall of Lin Xiangyang, linked to Kinmen drills, showed that no unit was safe. Attendance at the Plenum was thin: only 39 percent of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) delegates appeared, and nearly two-thirds of generals stayed away. Of the 79 generals promoted by Xi, 36 have already been dismissed. The purge meant to enforce discipline now fuels fear and distrust.
Xi assumes loyalty ensures stability. In reality, secrecy and suspicion have hollowed out morale. The anti-corruption drive doubles as a political weapon, removing challengers while claiming moral purpose. Behind this facade, confidence fades. It is noted that vacancies in the Rocket Force have slowed modernization and coordination, especially for Taiwan contingencies.
For now, Xi looks secure. He has promoted Zhang Shengmin, the top disciplinary officer, to vice chair of the Central Military Commission, tightening the chain of command. Yet the cost is high. A fearful army cannot fight well. A paralyzed bureaucracy cannot innovate. Xi’s authority looks absolute, but it rests on shrinking trust.
Taiwan’s Counterpart: Democratic Discontent
Taiwan’s Great Recall Wave tells a different story. Instead of leaders silencing rivals, voters sought to punish them. Between May and October 2025, activists launched 31 recall bids, mostly targeting KMT legislators accused of cutting defence budgets or leaning too close to China. The effort followed the polarized 2024 election, when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lost its majority to a KMT–TPP coalition.
The recalls drew energy from frustration over gridlock and external threats. Polls show 68 percent of Taiwanese favour maintaining the status quo or gradual independence, yet many felt powerless as opposition lawmakers blocked key policies. The failed referendum on reopening the Maanshan nuclear plant in August deepened discontent.
Despite the anger, none of the 31 targeted KMT lawmakers lost their seats. The result signalled both voter fatigue and democratic maturity. Many rejected the use of recalls as partisan tools. Post-election polls showed that over half of respondents opposed further recall attempts.
The episode reshaped Taiwan’s politics. The KMT–TPP “ghost coalition” survived internal scandals and policy rifts. New KMT leader Cheng Li-wun and TPP chair Huang Kuo-chang are already preparing joint campaigns for 2026 local elections. President Lai Ching-te’s government remains constrained, though it has pushed defence spending to 3.3 percent of GDP. Gridlock defines the moment. The recall wave tested democracy’s limits, revealing both its energy and its exhaustion.
Taiwan’s assumption contrasts sharply with Beijing’s. Citizens believe open confrontation strengthens democracy, while the CCP sees dissent as decay. Yet both face similar dangers. In Taiwan, endless battles can paralyze governance. In China, fear stifles initiative.
The difference lies in choice. Taiwan’s citizens can vote again. China’s cannot.
External Forces and the Disinformation Arena
External powers now shape the turmoil within. Both the CCP’s purges and Taiwan’s recall battles have become fronts in the broader U.S.–China rivalry.
Beijing exploits Taiwan’s openness to divide its people. In August 2025, Xinhua’s “DPP Rejection” campaign spread claims that the ruling party had lost legitimacy. When Chinese patrol ships neared Kinmen, coordinated posts branded the DPP as reckless. Such tactics deepen fatigue and could sway Taiwan’s 2026 vote.
Washington’s $2 billion arms sale and new sanctions hardened Xi Jinping’s siege mentality. The CCP’s call for “dialogue” at the October Fourth Plenum soon gave way to talk of infiltration and betrayal. Pressure from abroad drives Beijing inward, isolating its leadership.
Disinformation weakens Taiwan’s democracy, while U.S. pressure feeds CCP paranoia. Openness meets control; fatigue meets fear. Missteps near Kinmen or inside the PLA could spark a crisis neither side wants. Without renewed trust and dialogue, both risk sliding into confrontation not from intent, but exhaustion.
Conclusion
The CCP’s purges and Taiwan’s recalls reveal two systems searching for legitimacy through opposite means. Xi Jinping tightens his grip through fear, convinced that unity can be commanded. Taiwan’s voters assert control through ballots, convinced that accountability can restore balance. Both methods expose strength and weakness. In Beijing, control breeds isolation. In Taipei, freedom breeds paralysis.
External pressures blur the picture. Disinformation confuses facts. Foreign interests shape domestic struggles. Neither side operates with full autonomy. The CCP’s purges deepen military uncertainty. Taiwan’s recalls ripple through its institutions and alliances. Both risk losing focus amid rivalry and noise.
The result is a tense stalemate across the Strait. China’s fear of instability may invite overreach. Taiwan’s democratic fatigue may slow reform. Each side confronts the limits of its system. The danger lies not only in confrontation but in miscalculation. As new elections and military appointments loom, the region’s future will depend less on who purges or recalls and more on who learns to listen.
Tang Meng Kit is a Singaporean freelance analyst and commentator who works as an aerospace engineer. He graduated from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU, Singapore in 2025.
The views expressed on this blog are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of the SOAS China Institute.
SHARE THIS POST