By Song Guocheng, Political Analysis
Since Xi Jinping first called on officials to “tell China’s story well” following the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) 18th National Congress, Beijing has increasingly relied on sweeping political slogans to frame both domestic governance and foreign policy.
But many of these slogans function as so-called “pseudo-narratives” that do not rely on outright fabrication. Instead, they combine selective facts, carefully chosen statistics, and emotionally resonant language while obscuring the structural realities and struggles within China’s political system. Their purpose is to reinforce the CCP’s legitimacy by shaping how audiences interpret events rather than by presenting a complete picture.
In my view, these narratives fall into three broad categories: Those directed at domestic audiences, the international community, and Taiwan. We go deeper into each one.
RELATED: How ‘Small Yard, High Fence’ Is Reshaping Taiwan’s Role in Global Supply Chains
1. Legitimacy via prosperity and national revival
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
At home, Beijing has built much of its political messaging around slogans such as “moderately prosperous society,” “common prosperity,” “whole-process people’s democracy,” and “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” by claiming legitimacy through a lens of prosperity and national rejuvenation.
These narratives portray economic development and centralized political leadership as proof of the CCP’s success while minimizing structural issues such as unequal access to social services, the household registration (hukou) system, and widening disparities between urban and rural China.
The concept of “whole-process people’s democracy” exemplifies this approach. Rather than emphasizing competitive elections, checks and balances, or independent oversight, it redefines democracy as participation under one-party leadership.
Likewise, official narratives surrounding national rejuvenation highlight historical grievances while downplaying politically sensitive episodes such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.
2. Promoting China’s global model
Outside China, Beijing promotes a different set of narratives to recast its global image. Concepts such as a “community with a shared future for mankind” and the Belt and Road Initiative present China as a champion of peaceful development and mutually beneficial cooperation.
Yet I believe these narratives often diverge from the realities cited by many governments and independent analysts, including concerns over debt diplomacy, economic coercion, and Beijing’s increasingly assertive posture in the South China Sea.
Recent reports by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) argue that Beijing has increasingly supplemented official propaganda with more sophisticated influence operations. According to the reports, Chinese state-linked actors increasingly rely on local influencers, alternative media, and third-party intermediaries to amplify favorable narratives while obscuring the Chinese origin of the messaging.
3. Framing unification with Taiwan as inevitable
Beijing has also systematically updated its messaging toward Taiwan, particularly alongside new legal initiatives and cross-strait policy changes. Central to this strategy is the portrayal of “One Country, Two Systems” as a peaceful framework that would preserve Taiwan’s existing social and economic system following unification.
Though Taiwan operates as an independent nation since its establishment in 1949, Beijing views the island as a “breakaway province,” and has vowed to reclaim it by any means necessary, even if that means resorting to military force to achieve unification, which the CCP claims as “inevitable.”
In my view, the credibility of those assurances has been fundamentally undermined by Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong following the implementation of the National Security Law in 2020. Official claims that Taiwan’s future should be decided by all 1.4 billion Chinese citizens similarly attempt to redefine the principle of self-determination while overlooking Taiwan’s democratic political system.
Finally, repeated assertions that unification is “historically inevitable” serve not merely as political rhetoric but as psychological messaging designed to foster the belief that resistance is ultimately futile.
Ultimately, false narratives cannot be defeated simply by correcting individual facts. They must be challenged by exposing how they are constructed and by presenting truthful, evidence-based alternatives.
If Taiwan and other democratic societies hope to resist authoritarian influence campaigns, they must build what I call “authentic narratives,” grounded in historical accuracy, democratic values, and critical thinking, rather than allowing carefully packaged political messaging to shape public perception.
