About PLA's dual-leadership system

Here's an in-depth look at the dual-leadership system:

But in PLA, the disputes can really paralyze large units becouse it can take place by two equal leaders.

Click to expand...

They're not equal leaders though. They have different roles and one of them, commander, is going to be the one demanding greater respect. The way I've heard is basically that the commander of a unity shouldn't be considered a "friend" so in this case the commissar would take that role.

It's possible because of that there may be disputes, but that would be the same in most militaries. It doesn't create the problem you think. Knowing the Soviets, the problem was the commissars constantly held a threat of purging over the commanders and were meant more to root out political criminals in the military.

The proplems roses from the fact that Commisar doesent just manage these things, but leads the unit in this field. He has the final word in these subjects and despite their sound like unimportant rear area issues, the work load of the Commisar actually covers the most crucial features that comes to units fighting capacity. In the wilderness, (aka combat enverioment) these things are still managed by the commisar, and expecially in the wild, they should really be under the unit commanders juristiction so that he can properly lead his unit be aware of its internal situation and have tools to improve it. Military unit leadership isent just knowing the rigth tactics and strategies, its about managing punch of soldiers. In PRC this is divided so that the soldier leads only the military side and political party watch dog leads all other aspects.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that adds up. In war time the commissar serves like a consultant, right? I imagine the whole idea is that he reports the internal situation to the commander. It makes no sense to have it any other way.

That relationship between the commisar and unit military leader consist from the start a really bad drift and friction and the main consern of the entire system is its inflexibility. In west, when unit commander has an innovative idea, its up to his own mind and persona, wheter the unit conducts his idea, but in PLA it needs to have both Commisar and unit leader having to agree that wheter that idea is good or not.

Click to expand...

Do you have any support for that claim or is that just conjecture?

In Spanish Civil war and In 1939 Finnish-russian war, the main reason for communist forces failure was that the military units, companies up to divisions lacked the flexiility to adapt into situations that werent anticipated by the doctrines and "scientifical war fare". This along with the units lack of innovativenes to exploid sudden favorable situation lead into cathastrophic consequences. This inflexibility wasent coused just from the commisar system, but the commisars, wheter they intervented into the decission making or not were big factor in it.

Click to expand...

It doesn't appear this the specific role the commissar take in the PLA. It seems they're more oriented towards the political side.

I think the biggest problem is the dual-leadership system doesn't appear to have adjusted to fit the changes going on in China. I think a reform of the system is certainly in order, but I see no reason to think the system itself is the problem.

The way I've heard is basically that the commander of a unity shouldn't be considered a "friend" so in this case the commissar would take that role.

Click to expand...

well that depends. For my experience, the best leaders that actually got the people to do things and earned the ranks apreciation where the tigth-but-loose sort of guys...eg. normal people, not the charicature of professional officers.

The whole idea that there would be some sort of guy who would listen soldiers "openings" terryfies me...the basic idea of military dicipline is to cut out the fact that you have any "rigth" to whine about your bad conditions or bad managing. Mauluse of power is another thing and investigating it falls under military polices and military juristiction task, but that every unit would have a some sort of "pall" of the soldiers....thats either Propaganda or BS by someone who has no clue what soever what military life is.

I'm not sure if that adds up. In war time the commissar serves like a consultant, right? I imagine the whole idea is that he reports the internal situation to the commander. It makes no sense to have it any other way.

Click to expand...

Of how Im understand it, the political commisars duty is to take care of the facts that effects to the "Living" in the unit. If that power is taken away from him during the wartime, the results are even more chatastrophic. Eeryone knows that when dealing and managing supply,support and housing issues, the people to people relationships are the key to make it work smoothly. The garrison life prepares all the time to a warlike situation, and if the one that manages it in garrison suddenly doesent manage it in the wilderness, how can anyone expect that a leader that hasent experience and contacts from it in the garrison life can suddenly handle it in the wild??

And the unit commander is the one that needs to be aware of his own internal situation, it cannot be any seccond hand information. He has to know how fit his sub-commanders are and hows the morale of his men are. Without that knowlidge, he cannot lead the unit

Do you have any support for that claim or is that just conjecture?

Click to expand...

Speaking from my own experience... And from the fact that is really basic military pshycology. We had a class of it during my training period when the miltary hierarchy was explained to us. They used lot of examples of commisar system compared to our own methods. In WWII our outstanding performance against the soviets, even when their ill-fated commisars where neglected to similar position than in PLA has today, was largerly due the fact that our leaders were actually engouraged for innovativiness and open mindness, where as soviet units still followed stiffly their doctrines and detailed text books of how to figth war by the scientific way...

Of all the reports that I have read about PLA, PLAAF and PLAN training, I always came up with doctrines and how troops are trained to follow this and that doctrine accompanied with their horrible charts of different leadership subjugations in the jungle of military and political ranks

I had the unfortune to be in battalion wich was almoust like backed up with completely wrong sort of individuals that military has to offer. The result was sometimes near chaos like when the chain of command doesent worked well and sometimes information was held back deliberatly. I know what its like to serve in the wilderness with badly lead military unit.

I think the biggest problem is the dual-leadership system doesn't appear to have adjusted to fit the changes going on in China. I think a reform of the system is certainly in order, but I see no reason to think the system itself is the problem.

Click to expand...

There is, there you are rigth, but I think its exactly from its inflexibility to face the demands of rabid changing modern battlefield where the innovativeness is key of everything. In PLAN this is already in function as the rank system of units is gradually beeing cribled in favor of more flexible unit cohesion that are needed in blue water operations.

The whole idea that there would be some sort of guy who would listen soldiers "openings" terryfies me...the basic idea of military dicipline is to cut out the fact that you have any "rigth" to whine about your bad conditions or bad managing.

Click to expand...

Whine? I'm not saying that at all and I don't think that's the point. It's just the "good cop, bad cop" idea. I'm not talking about people just venting all of their concerns in plain, blunt language. It's better to have soldiers complaining to one guy than each other in any event.

Of how Im understand it, the political commisars duty is to take care of the facts that effects to the "Living" in the unit. If that power is taken away from him during the wartime, the results are even more chatastrophic. Eeryone knows that when dealing and managing supply,support and housing issues, the people to people relationships are the key to make it work smoothly. The garrison life prepares all the time to a warlike situation, and if the one that manages it in garrison suddenly doesent manage it in the wilderness, how can anyone expect that a leader that hasent experience and contacts from it in the garrison life can suddenly handle it in the wild??

And the unit commander is the one that needs to be aware of his own internal situation, it cannot be any seccond hand information. He has to know how fit his sub-commanders are and hows the morale of his men are. Without that knowlidge, he cannot lead the unit

Click to expand...

I'm saying it's better to have someone who can do it and not be too tied down with the demands of military command.

Speaking from my own experience... And from the fact that is really basic military pshycology. We had a class of it during my training period when the miltary hierarchy was explained to us. They used lot of examples of commisar system compared to our own methods. In WWII our outstanding performance against the soviets, even when their ill-fated commisars where neglected to similar position than in PLA has today, was largerly due the fact that our leaders were actually engouraged for innovativiness and open mindness, where as soviet units still followed stiffly their doctrines and detailed text books of how to figth war by the scientific way...

Click to expand...

It could also be because the Soviets sucked. The commissar system didn't seem to hurt the PLA much in the Sino-Indian War or the Sino-Vietnamese War.

I'm curious if you actually have proof the PLA's commanders aren't encouraged to be innovative.

Soviet system was setup in a very different environment, 4/5 of the red army officers used to serve in imperial troops, while Mao setup PLA system from the scratch in the farmer's army.

And ROC troops have the similiar system today, they call them political warfare officer - a system copied from PLA after KMT was defeated and retreated to Taiwan.

Whine? I'm not saying that at all and I don't think that's the point. It's just the "good cop, bad cop" idea. I'm not talking about people just venting all of their concerns in plain, blunt language. It's better to have soldiers complaining to one guy than each other in any event.

Click to expand...

well IMHO that just isent good military leadership. Like in our batalion, where we had these good/bad cops by simple human nature, the ranks usually worked better under the "good cop" and favored him over the nasty personalities...if just system in even engouraged, the soldiers can become even more tense to protest and whine of bad conditions, and every soldier in any army has reason to whine, exspecially if given change to it.
I found also that best thing to do to your morale in rough conditions was to suck the bad things inside and understand that it doesent go away unless you do what you are told to and focus on the little silver linings. If there would have been change to "open" up every time the fire position was in tensely rocked terrain or when the ammunition transfer came in the middle of your 3-hour-nigth rest, the whole battery would have been imobilised.

'm saying it's better to have someone who can do it and not be too tied down with the demands of military command.

Click to expand...

And Im saying that in overal, it is military commanding. The biggest fault of the system is that it divides the complex field of military unit leadership into pieces when the nature of that leadership doesent really survive if spilt into small particles.

It could also be because the Soviets sucked. The commissar system didn't seem to hurt the PLA much in the Sino-Indian War or the Sino-Vietnamese War.

Click to expand...

Those wars IMO proves exactly how unflexble and stiff PLA can be. Both are only marginal victories to the PRC and by huge price compared to any other military that has done similar manouvres. Just look the troop strengths involved and compare those to the resulst again.

I'm curious if you actually have proof the PLA's commanders aren't encouraged to be innovative.

Click to expand...

How can they be, if there is a constant watch dog rigth next to them to report to the party if they decide to do some sort of treason...expecially when it appears that the condition of "treason" is terminated by the Commisar. Im not saying that they say it directly that "Dont be innovative". It just that the athmosphere where they work makes a natural phsycological decission behalf of them

And ROC troops have the similiar system today, they call them political warfare officer - a system copied from PLA after KMT was defeated and retreated to Taiwan.

Click to expand...

well no one has claimed here that it has to be narrowed to communist regimes to have such troops.

well IMHO that just isent good military leadership. Like in our batalion, where we had these good/bad cops by simple human nature, the ranks usually worked better under the "good cop" and favored him over the nasty personalities...if just system in even engouraged, the soldiers can become even more tense to protest and whine of bad conditions, and every soldier in any army has reason to whine, exspecially if given change to it.
I found also that best thing to do to your morale in rough conditions was to suck the bad things inside and understand that it doesent go away unless you do what you are told to and focus on the little silver linings. If there would have been change to "open" up every time the fire position was in tensely rocked terrain or when the ammunition transfer came in the middle of your 3-hour-nigth rest, the whole battery would have been imobilised.

Click to expand...

That's not really what I'm saying again. I said, "I'm not talking about people just venting all of their concerns in plain, blunt language." It's not about one guy being nice and the other being mean either. I'm saying that one is tough and the other isn't as tough. I'm not suggesting he act like one of the soldiers or anything to that effect.

And Im saying that in overal, it is military commanding. The biggest fault of the system is that it divides the complex field of military unit leadership into pieces when the nature of that leadership doesent really survive if spilt into small particles.

Click to expand...

Some of those things aren't really split. Obviously relations with the soldiers and understanding the internal situation is something the commander needs as well as his military command, but it's also helpful to have someone who can do that much more than him.

Those wars IMO proves exactly how unflexble and stiff PLA can be. Both are only marginal victories to the PRC and by huge price compared to any other military that has done similar manouvres. Just look the troop strengths involved and compare those to the resulst again.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about Sino-Indian War, as I'm not sure how many Indian troops were involved, though it wasn't a "marginal" victory, but Sino-Vietnamese war is certainly not an example. They were vastly outnumbered and dealing with highly-experienced forces.

How can they be, if there is a constant watch dog rigth next to them to report to the party if they decide to do some sort of treason...expecially when it appears that the condition of "treason" is terminated by the Commisar. Im not saying that they say it directly that "Dont be innovative". It just that the athmosphere where they work makes a natural phsycological decission behalf of them

Click to expand...

You see, you're trying to equate them with the Soviets. Do you have any evidence the commissars are told or expected to believe shifting from the military doctrine and tactics is "treason" or are you just conjecturing again?

That's not really what I'm saying again. I said, "I'm not talking about people just venting all of their concerns in plain, blunt language." It's not about one guy being nice and the other being mean either. I'm saying that one is tough and the other isn't as tough. I'm not suggesting he act like one of the soldiers or anything to that effect.

Click to expand...

Well what are you saying then? becouse to me, it sounded just like that. Its hard to understand if you havent been in military, but the dicipline comes down in the form that You dont whine...as simple as that.

Some of those things aren't really split. Obviously relations with the soldiers and understanding the internal situation is something the commander needs as well as his military command, but it's also helpful to have someone who can do that much more than him.

Click to expand...

Well the commander leads and manages these things. It doesent mean that he actually does them. Many of the unit-officers and quartermasters roles in western sense militaries have been incorporated into the commisar role, but the difference is that commisars have power to decide over the things they manage, but in western system they work under the commanders authority.

Those roles arent the real proplem of the system the proplem is the shared authority and the authority over the commander in some cases.

I'm not sure about Sino-Indian War, as I'm not sure how many Indian troops were involved, though it wasn't a "marginal" victory, but Sino-Vietnamese war is certainly not an example. They were vastly outnumbered and dealing with highly-experienced forces.

Click to expand...

In Sino-Vietnam war all that PRC managed to do was to "show a singal" to Saigon, they didn't manage to take out Vietnamese military and political influence nor did they manage to change the govrenment or cribble Vietnamese military.
Just figure out how many PLA troops were involved, and what did they actually do in the battle field.

But the topic here is dual leadership, not those wars Lets not continue over them, unless you have some insigth of the dual-leadership systems performance in those

You see, you're trying to equate them with the Soviets. Do you have any evidence the commissars are told or expected to believe shifting from the military doctrine and tactics is "treason" or are you just conjecturing again?

Click to expand...

No. Someone else (fishead?) here promtly declared that the commisars have the power to intervene into Military commanders actions if he is conducting treason.
Do you really think that it hasent got any reflection to the officers working enverioment, nor that it wouldnt create any sort of disortion in the minds of officer forced to opearate under that circumstance?

Well what are you saying then? becouse to me, it sounded just like that. Its hard to understand if you havent been in military, but the dicipline comes down in the form that You dont whine...as simple as that.

Click to expand...

I was trying to give an example with the idea of the second-in-command who's like the intermediary with the first-in-command. That was sort of the idea I was trying to give. That the commissar could ease communication between the commander and his troops and help him better understand what's going on so he can deal with it.

Well the commander leads and manages these things. It doesent mean that he actually does them. Many of the unit-officers and quartermasters roles in western sense militaries have been incorporated into the commisar role, but the difference is that commisars have power to decide over the things they manage, but in western system they work under the commanders authority.

Those roles arent the real proplem of the system the proplem is the shared authority and the authority over the commander in some cases.

Click to expand...

Well, I think they've been reducing it so that this isn't the case as much anymore with the PLA. The commanders are being given more authority as I understand.

In Sino-Vietnam war all that PRC managed to do was to "show a singal" to Saigon, they didn't manage to take out Vietnamese military and political influence nor did they manage to change the govrenment or cribble Vietnamese military.
Just figure out how many PLA troops were involved, and what did they actually do in the battle field.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking that was largely the point, but you can't fault the dual-leadership system for it in any event. From what I understand, many of the civilians they encountered ended up taking arms against the PLA. So the losses you mention are quite understandable. I also think it was a matter of training and combat experience in both cases as well.

My point was that, given the weaknesses of the PLA in equipment, training, or experience, in both wars they still came out doing very effective work.

No. Someone else (fishead?) here promtly declared that the commisars have the power to intervene into Military commanders actions if he is conducting treason.

Click to expand...

My point was, what evidence is there that going against the military doctrine and strategic innovativeness is considered treason? Obviously if he's talking about rising up against the "communist swine" naturally the commissar would say something, but if he decides that he's got a great idea to use in battle that could turn the situation around, but goes against the books, I don't think the commissar would try to report that as treason.

This is especially true given that the PLA is seriously emphasizing on innovative strategy and tactics now.

I was trying to give an example with the idea of the second-in-command who's like the intermediary with the first-in-command. That was sort of the idea I was trying to give. That the commissar could ease communication between the commander and his troops and help him better understand what's going on so he can deal with it.

Click to expand...

Well Like I have said in million times, the commander needs to have fingertip feeling of the troops under his direct command, otherwise he cannot be leader...relying into seccond hand information only isolates the commander from the reality.
And another thing that appears weird to me is the communication. The communication with too many links in it is always prone to couse fuzz....best way to make things to clear to the troops is when the commander with his authority comes in front of the troops and explains the commands to themselves. By that he shows clearly how he is the one responsible for the commands. If it would always be someone else that comes to say that now he has decided that you do this and that, its lot easier to make the troops dissent and grumble in the tents how stubid and distant commander they have. During our field training period, our battalion commander was exactly like that.

Well, I think they've been reducing it so that this isn't the case as much anymore with the PLA. The commanders are being given more authority as I understand.

Click to expand...

Yeas PLA certainly is going trough changes. What ever the role of commisar is in future, no one really knows. If its position is made similar to unit-officers one, it would be ideal as the actual dual-leadership would dissapear but the political officer of the unit would remain.

I'm thinking that was largely the point, but you can't fault the dual-leadership system for it in any event. From what I understand, many of the civilians they encountered ended up taking arms against the PLA. So the losses you mention are quite understandable. I also think it was a matter of training and combat experience in both cases as well.

My point was that, given the weaknesses of the PLA in equipment, training, or experience, in both wars they still came out doing very effective work.

Click to expand...

And my point is that PLA didnt present itself as innovative and flexible force. It couldnt exploid all the changes it had. And that stiffnes comes from the dual-leadership and relying too much to doctrines.

My point was, what evidence is there that going against the military doctrine and strategic innovativeness is considered treason? Obviously if he's talking about rising up against the "communist swine" naturally the commissar would say something, but if he decides that he's got a great idea to use in battle that could turn the situation around, but goes against the books, I don't think the commissar would try to report that as treason.

Click to expand...

Well offcourse they arent. The concern that i have is that the term treason is decided solely by the political commisar or other political troops under his or the party juristiction. In perfect world it wouldn't couse proplems....but in reality, imagine self to work with someone who technically has a pistol barrel tigthly fixed into your back. It doesent need to be anything more human than that the two leaders simply cannot stance each others....

Well Like I have said in million times, the commander needs to have fingertip feeling of the troops under his direct command, otherwise he cannot be leader...relying into seccond hand information only isolates the commander from the reality.

Click to expand...

And, like I said, he would have that, however, he would also have someone to get more out of them. I'm saying that the commissar could complement the commander's knowledge of morale and the concerns of his soldiers so that the commander can better address them personally. It helps if the commander doesn't have to spend time figuring out what a problem is with his troops, so he can solve it.

And another thing that appears weird to me is the communication. The communication with too many links in it is always prone to couse fuzz....best way to make things to clear to the troops is when the commander with his authority comes in front of the troops and explains the commands to themselves. By that he shows clearly how he is the one responsible for the commands. If it would always be someone else that comes to say that now he has decided that you do this and that, its lot easier to make the troops dissent and grumble in the tents how stubid and distant commander they have. During our field training period, our battalion commander was exactly like that.

Click to expand...

I don't get where you have the idea that I was saying the commissar should delegate the orders from the commander and I don't believe that is what he is supposed to do either.

And my point is that PLA didnt present itself as innovative and flexible force. It couldnt exploid all the changes it had. And that stiffnes comes from the dual-leadership and relying too much to doctrines.

Click to expand...

It could just be that the PLA wasn't trained too well in being innovative and flexible. I'm not sure about the Sino-Indian War, but as I recall, the PLA did not send its best troops or even some of its best troops into Vietnam, though I couldn't say about India.

Isn't it possible that the commanders in the PLA were just not trained as well as they should have been?

What reason do you have to say the inflexibility and stiffness you allege was present in both conflicts is a result of the dual-leadership system?

In perfect world it wouldn't couse proplems....but in reality, imagine self to work with someone who technically has a pistol barrel tigthly fixed into your back. It doesent need to be anything more human than that the two leaders simply cannot stance each others....

Click to expand...

I think you're really over-dramatizing this whole thing. From what I've read the problem right now with the system is more about the shifting beliefs in society. The commissars are in charge of seeing that the soldiers are loyal to the party ideals, but the modernization of China is making for soldiers who behave in a way that would previously be considered inappropriate by a commissar. So a conflict arises there. That is what is apparently the problem more-so than anything else.