By Jian Yi
Roughly a decade ago, the Chinese Communist Party publicly acknowledged an unusual vulnerability. In official language, it warned that the internet had become “the largest variable” confronting the Party, and that mishandling it could pose a serious threat to long-term governance. At the time, the statement was framed as a cautionary reminder. Today, it is increasingly cited by observers as a description of a crisis already in motion.
‘Zhao Leji supports Zhang Youxia, takes a different line from Xi’
On Feb. 5, a brief post on the social media platform X began circulating rapidly. Within 24 hours, it had attracted close to 440,000 views.
The post claimed that an emergency meeting of China’s National People’s Congress (NPC), chaired by Zhao Leji, had refused to approve a request attributed to Xi Jinping to arrest Zhang Youxia and Liu Zhenli, both serving NPC delegates. According to the claim, many observers had expected the meeting to function as a procedural rubber stamp. Instead, the post asserted, Zhao sided with Zhang and took a position openly at odds with Xi.
Zhang Youxia and Liu Zhenli are both military representatives to the NPC. Under Chinese law, the arrest of an NPC delegate requires legislative approval; without it, legal proceedings cannot advance. The post ended by posing a pointed question: what options would Xi Jinping have if such approval were denied?
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
Despite its sparse wording, the post reached hundreds of thousands of users. Engagement metrics showed hundreds of likes and dozens of saves, indicating that many readers treated the claim as consequential rather than casual rumor.
After reposting the message, one user offered a more expansive interpretation. The commenter argued that Zhao Leji’s stance implied backing from within the military and suggested that anti-Xi forces in the armed forces had already consolidated control around Beijing. The same comment described Xi’s political position as increasingly fragile and cited what it characterized as an urgent phone call initiated by Xi to former U.S. President Donald Trump as evidence that Xi was seeking external leverage to escape an internal crisis. The commenter predicted that the political deadlock would be resolved within a month.
The language of that comment drew attention in its own right. The commenter referred to Xi Jinping using the pronoun “牠,” a term typically reserved for animals rather than people. That single repost alone accumulated nearly 100,000 views.
As the original post approached 440,000 views, the comment section expanded rapidly. Some users echoed the claim and amplified its implications; others expressed skepticism or questioned its plausibility.
One commenter argued that, under established procedures, the detention of an NPC delegate must first be reported to the NPC Standing Committee and approved at a formal meeting, concluding that Xi had violated legal norms. Another suggested that if Zhao’s objective was to preserve Zhang and Liu’s status as military delegates, Xi would be forced to retreat, deepening the political impasse.
Other responses moved into more speculative territory. Some predicted that Xi might attempt to move against Zhao Leji through security forces operating outside formal legal channels. Others questioned why an emergency session would be convened at all, arguing that routine personnel matters would not normally warrant such an extraordinary meeting.
One user framed the episode in institutional terms, writing that Zhao was not shielding particular individuals but defending constitutional procedure and basic legal order. The commenter described February 4 as a historic turning point and likened it to the Soviet Union’s August 19 incident.
Many of these reactions rested on the assumption that Zhao Leji had openly confronted Xi Jinping. Critics cautioned that such readings could reflect wishful thinking or political projection rather than verified fact. Even so, the sheer scale of the discussion has generated a form of public pressure that the Xi administration cannot easily ignore.
The Party confronts the consequences of its own system
For China’s current leadership, the spread of these narratives presents a dilemma. Silence allows speculation about elite power struggles to proliferate unchecked, reinforcing themes of confrontation between Zhao and Xi or claims that the military has encircled Beijing. Such stories tap into a long-standing public fixation on opaque CCP infighting.
A rapid response carries its own dangers. Any official statement would be subjected to intense scrutiny, effectively reopening a space for accountability that the system has long sought to close. If an explanation fails to satisfy public expectations, alternative versions of events are likely to emerge, drawing authorities into a recurring cycle of denial, rebuttal, and reputational damage.
The comment threads attached to the post also revealed a deeper skepticism toward China’s political institutions. Some users argued that Xi no longer bothers with legal procedure at all, dismissing the constitution as an empty document. Others countered that the NPC itself lacks substantive authority and functions primarily as a ceremonial body. One comment captured the prevailing cynicism with biting irony, suggesting that the debate treated China as though it operated under a genuine separation of powers.
In 2016, the CCP again warned that the internet posed a defining challenge, noting that with hundreds of millions of users, failure to control online discourse could undermine long-term rule.
Nearly a decade later, that warning is increasingly invoked as evidence that the Party is now confronting the consequences of its own design. A system that depended for decades on information control and public deception appears increasingly exposed to the very dynamics it once believed it could fully contain.
Editor’s Note: This article draws on online posts, social media discussions, and public commentary circulating on overseas platforms. Claims concerning internal Chinese Communist Party dynamics, personnel actions, and alleged decisions by state organs have not been independently verified and are presented as assertions made by online sources and commentators.
