About PLA's dual-leadership system

Gollevainen said:

I know that they wont "intervene"
In all armies aply our army's unoffical motto: the faster you do it, the faster it will happen. In PLA the chain of protocols and correct procedures are just too burden when the decissions, even the one that says where the battalions trucks are to be deployed for the next dayligth, needs to be ligthing fast. The commander gives the orders to his sub-commanders to conduct. No party comitee meating in that nor that someone else makes the decission.

Click to expand...

We can keep this debate over and over and over.....But the reality is that you use western model to create a "Chinese situation" which doesn't exist in PLA, and start to critise it.

I don't konw what "protocols burden" you talk about? A commissier acts like a vice-commander in combat situation and the commander is in full control, who knows everything and in charge of everything. And "party comitee meating"? This is the first time I heard that PLA needs to do a party committee meeting in combat mode.

If you create a straw man and keep beating it, you always win. I quit this kind of debate.

the idea of military dicipline is that it doesent matter wheter you slep under the stars and trees, or in the garrison, the chain of command needs to be same in both occasions...the dicipline and authority comes from the contiuty and the things drilled in the parade ground bare the fruit in the battle field...

This isent related to "chinese way of doing things", it comes from the basic phsylogics of the leadership. Military dicipline isent cultural related thing, it is the same in everywhere, so are the dynamics that dictates the military units existence. Those fundamentals that combat situation creates doesent look the skin color our education of the troops involved. Its the chain of decission making that respond to these issues and dual-leadership is unflexible to meat the modern battle field enverioment. Why should it be, it is a historical oddity that have served well in its purpose, but that purpose never was to create some new "chinese" super way to lead military units better than the reactionary west have done. Claims like those just repeats blindly the propapganda that was allogated to this system...it's really "cheap" to hide behind such.

So Its rather blind-folded and naive to defend this system becouse its reflects the chinese way of doing things. I understand that to many youngsters of chinese orgin that live in the hard western reality, you wish to belive that in the homeland, everything is rigth and the oddities of that world are just better way to do things. Unfortuanetly that sort of seeing things would only lead this sort of out-of-contest claims and absurdities

The dual-leadership is, like Zaky said before in this thread a remnrant of Chinese communists own history and its a tool of PRCs social-order to keep the army under its controll. And up today it has worked, in that role, but no logic in the world can overlook or deny the stiffness and heavynest it couses to actual combat manouvres of military units.

Basically every country in the world develops some tools to control his armies. The democracies use civil control, the autocrat regimes use paternalism (the ruler family put close relatives in key positions, see the case of Iraq) and the communist (not only the Russian or Chinese ones, but all Eastern Europeans) use the method of political commissars, who have a close eyes on the armies. Every method has his own serious drawback but this could be the subject for another topic.

yeas. But Im afraid that such conversation would only lead into figthing which political mode is the best ect...
They key should be to realise this and not to see the Dual-leadership out of its own contest.

If somebody has some exact information’s about what rights have the commissars please share with as.
I have a couple of presumptions bit maybe I am wrong.
First at all, the commissars have the right to dismiss the commanding officer for the first sign of suspicion.
Second, the commissars have the right of veto (maybe they not take part on planning, but must approve the decisions).
Because the commissars are the party control, with this kind of right an eventual putsch is impossible.

zaky said:

If somebody has some exact information’s about what rights have the commissars please share with as.
I have a couple of presumptions bit maybe I am wrong.
First at all, the commissars have the right to dismiss the commanding officer for the first sign of suspicion.
Second, the commissars have the right of veto (maybe they not take part on planning, but must approve the decisions).
Because the commissars are the party control, with this kind of right an eventual putsch is impossible.

Click to expand...

LOL, that's Russian one.

Romanian one
I grew up in the Ceausescu regime end in know about what I am talking about.
Here is a couple of link what I found searching after the world of political commissars.

A writing af Trotsky "The communist party and the read army"



Wikipedia definition



Globalsecurity about the PLAF political system

That's probably why Ceausescu got executed with his army refusing to help or even rebeling, while Deng could call in the army to crack down the protestors.

In PLA case, neither troop commander or commissar have the absolute upper-hand over the other, they have different jobs anyway. They have to get along with each other in their work, if trouble develops between them usually the higher level will interfere and it often ends up with one leaving.

In June 4th events, the commander of 38th army doesn't want to send troops (he is a son of senior CCP veteran, PLA general), and refused to follow the command from central military committee with the excuse that the command is not sent in written form, he was dismissed by the higher level of the army not by his commissar.

It should be noted that the commander of 38th didn't refuse to follow the command explicitly, he just disputed the command and use the excuse not to execute it. After the crackdown he was sent to the trial but acquited from crime, ended up in a lower position. If he did refuse to follow the command explicitly, then his commissar could have the right to shoot him(or in the other way, the commander can shoot his commissar). It is true for all armies in the world, if an army commander refuses to follow higher level command without any reason except just not intending to do it, he can be executed by the same level commander or even lower level officiers. It's a crime of treason.

Hmm… the comparation is no so good because the party in the case of Ceausescu turn against him ( read the controversy section) until in China the party remains loyal to the leader end united.

May major concern about the dual leadership is the sharing of responsibility. In the case of armies (ex. Sun Tzu`s army or NATO armies) the entire responsibility is on one single head.

In case of one person leadership the commander can delegate his power to subordinates, who ken make the job of a political commissar, but in a case of disaster he can’t hide for responsibility pointing to others.

In PLA case, neither troop commander or commissar have the absolute upper-hand over the other, they have different jobs anyway. They have to get along with each other in their work, if trouble develops between them usually the higher level will interfere and it often ends up with one leaving.

Click to expand...

This is the key. Its pointless to argue wheter the dual-leadership system is different in China or Romania when the fundamental structure of the system is what determines its weaknesses. Like I've said in this thread earlier and many times before that, the key to military unit's function as a military unit is the disipline. It's real meaning in this contest is propaply hard to understand if one haven't experienced it himself, but everyone can imagine it. Its like the displine given you by your parents and teachers but with one exeption: Its absolute, there's no questioning of anything, you do what you are told regardless of how silly it may seem.

One of the most important elements of military leadership is the chain-of command and hieracy. Your saying that there's no absolute upperhand in command is terrifying. 90 % of all, from smallest military units to divisions will not work properly if there is even slight of uncertainty which one has the last word. It doesen't require anything else than a personality non-suitable for leadership duties and the stronger minds will make sure that their voice is the loudest. When the entire system is advocating such of uncertainty, it cannot be effective.

Military system isen't democratic and it can never be such becouse from its deepest roots its the ulitamete totalitarian system and thats neccerical when you need to have controlled maniacs spreading death around you...