Who Gets the Money? This Is CCP Politics!

Renminbi Banknotes (Video Screenshot)

[People News] As the Chinese New Year approaches, it looks like Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials are in for a lucrative holiday. Although the CCP authorities have been reluctant to officially announce it, and the implementation may vary across regions, multiple sources confirm that a significant salary increase for civil servants is already underway, with some localities having begun disbursing the funds.

Reports indicate that the nationwide average salary increase for civil servants is around 5%, with back pay calculated from July 2024, covering a period of six months. Some sources claim that this raise translates to an average monthly increase of 500 yuan per person, meaning a lump sum of 3,000 yuan in retroactive payments.

But what about ordinary Chinese citizens who are not part of the Party-state system? In the face of China’s prolonged economic downturn—marked by business closures, soaring unemployment, and weak consumer spending—it may be difficult for the general public to enjoy a prosperous New Year.

"Who Gets the Benefits" Is the Fundamental Question of Politics

The justification for this round of civil servant salary increases is to boost consumption. If that is the case, wouldn’t distributing money to the entire population be more effective? If the Chinese authorities were willing to share some of this money with ordinary citizens—giving everyone a few hundred yuan for the New Year—wouldn’t that do more to stimulate consumption? Wouldn’t it help alleviate the so-called "three lows and three shortages"? Wouldn’t it create a harmonious atmosphere for all? Wouldn’t it make everyone, from top to bottom, happy? Since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, many countries worldwide have adopted measures to distribute money to their citizens, and similar suggestions have been made in China. However, despite loudly proclaiming "common prosperity," the Chinese Communist regime refuses to implement such a policy, which would benefit society economically, socially, and politically. Not only does it refuse, but it also insists on giving money solely to itself!

From an economic perspective, this policy cannot be justified. Instead, the reasoning behind it can be found in a classic definition of politics. This definition is the title of a book by American political scientist Harold Lasswell (1902–1978): Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. Published in 1936, this book highlights the role of elites as power holders in politics. When I analyze Chinese politics, I use the term "elite" in this sense—not to refer to people of high moral standing or exceptional talent, but to those who hold power. When elites control power, they use it to serve their own interests. The key to evaluating a political system is whether it has mechanisms to restrain elites from pursuing self-interest at the expense of the public and, in some cases, even compel them to prioritize the public interest.

Under the CCP’s rule, China is a society where politics overrides everything, yet discussions about what "politics" truly means are heavily suppressed. When people think of politics, they either envision grandiose, empty rhetoric filled with clichés, lies, and propaganda, or they associate it with chilling images of surveillance, control, imprisonment, and repression, backed by a brutal authoritarian machine. People are annoyed by the former and terrified of the latter. But have they ever wondered why politics presents itself to the public in these two distinct faces? Have they ever realized that behind these two faces lies the fundamental political maneuver of determining "who gets what"? Can this latest civil servant pay raise help people see what "politics" really is?

Who Gets the Money Reveals True Intentions

Whether or not people can see through this depends on their willingness to examine it. Some might say, "Politics is inherently ugly." But I don’t think that counts as real insight. Isn’t money also ugly? Yet no one can live without it. Similarly, no one can escape politics. Even if you believe you are detached from politics, in reality, you are merely allowing yourself to be manipulated and oppressed. Simply condemning politics as ugly is far from sufficient. Adopting a detached, aloof attitude toward politics is no different from being intimidated by its repressive side and avoiding it altogether. Both attitudes ultimately allow those in power to exploit politics for their own gain. The real challenge is whether we can recognize the inherent ugliness of politics while seeking institutional arrangements that limit its excesses and harness its potential to serve the public. That is the mark of someone who truly understands politics.

Some may argue, "All politics is ugly. Even in democratic systems, those in power seek to benefit themselves." I agree—partially. It is true that, regardless of whether a system is democratic or authoritarian, politics always revolves around the question of "who gets the benefits," and those in power will always attempt to use their authority for personal gain. However, precisely for this reason, democratic systems exist to place checks and balances on those in power. The goal of democracy is not to completely eliminate self-serving behavior among the ruling class—an impossible task—but to constrain it through institutional mechanisms. In contrast, authoritarian regimes lack such constraints. There are no institutional checks to prevent those in power from enriching themselves, nor mechanisms that force them to consider the public interest when making policy decisions. This is why democratic countries distribute money to all citizens to address economic hardships, while the CCP chooses to increase only civil servants’ salaries.

Others may say, "Even in a major democratic country, the elected president has issued 'private money'—so can you really claim that democracy restrains self-serving behavior?" My response is: Institutional constraints are not omnipotent. These constraints are constantly evolving and cannot be perfected in a single step. Having imperfect constraints is vastly different from having no constraints at all. When a democratic leader issues "private money," people recognize it as a crisis of democracy, not as democracy’s logical outcome. But when the CCP disregards the well-being of its people and raises only civil servants’ salaries, can we call it a crisis of the CCP system?

The belief that a perfect political system can be found to eliminate all political ugliness is precisely the kind of mindset that enables political corruption to flourish. Logically speaking, if a perfect solution does not exist, yet one refuses to adopt an imperfect solution, the result is to simply give up trying altogether—allowing political ugliness to continue unchecked. In practice, opportunists exploit this mindset by promising a utopian solution: they claim they can destroy the old society and build a new one without power-hungry elites, where so-called "servants of the people" will selflessly dedicate themselves to the public good. If you fall for this political deception, it is because you mistakenly believe that the nature of politics can be changed. It is because you refuse to acknowledge the ugliness of politics and would rather be comforted by lies that conceal it. Isn’t this exactly how a certain political party rose to power? They shouted lofty slogans while wielding ruthless violence. Behind these two tactics lay the real game: monopolizing power, monopolizing wealth, reinforcing their dominance, and dividing the spoils among themselves. What does "never forget the original mission" really mean? The answer is clear: who gets the money reveals the true agenda.

(Reposted from Voice of America)