About PLA's dual-leadership system

szbd

szbd

Junior Member
OK, some common sense in China. Not only military, but almost all government agencies use "党委统一的集体领导下的首长分工负责制", let me translate word by word:

党委: party committee
统一的: united, intact
集体领导: collective leadership
下的: 's
首长: leader
分工负责制: share responsibility system

So, military officers and the political officers share different jobs and follow the leadership of party committee. A party committee of a units includes all the high ranking officers.

Then, "属于军事工作方面的，由军事主官负责组织实施；属于政治工作方面的，由政治委员负责组织实施。", means military officers take charge of military tasks and political officers take charge of political tasks.

This means, the political officer can NEVER command his unit. In reality, a unit's job is given according to the order from obove. If this order is a military job, then the military officer excecute it, simple and clear.

About the party committee. First, it follows order, and it's not a .

To understand the system, at least one need to read <军队党委工作条例> (military party comittee doctrine) and <解放军司令部条例> (PLA command doctrine), however, they are not available on internet.
 
King_Comm

King_Comm

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Political officers are as competent militarily as the military officer as they have to meet similar criteria and underwent the same military education and training, they are expected to take over command if the commander becomes a casualty, and during peace time they are in charge of the education and welfare of the soldiers. The idea of a know-nothing political officer meddling with military decision making is merely a product of cold war propaganda.
 
G

goldenpanda

Banned Idiot
Now I don't want to make anyone spit blood, but I want to repost some stuff from a rand paper

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


One of the main critiques of the political commissar system and the function of the
GPD is that the political commissar interferes with or usurps the duties of the
commander. If this is true, it can be a hindrance in combat, preventing decisive action
and costing lives. Many senior leaders, however, deny that this is the case. Instead, they
argue that the GPD and the political commissar system is a source of inspiration and
esprit d’corps that helps the commander."
...
In the Sino-Indian War of 1962, the PLA showed great acumen in carefully
executing the campaign according to the guidelines formulated by CCP Central Military
Commission: 1) "to beat Indian troops soundly, " and 2) "to wipe out the invading Indian
forces totally and rapidly." During the campaign, the PLA destroyed the fighting strength
and captured personnel of three brigades of the Indian Army (the 7th Brigade, including
its commander Brigadier Dalvi, the 62nd Brigade and the 4th Artillery Brigade). In
addition the PLA seriously mauled five other Indian brigades (the 11th, 48th, 65th, 67th,
and 114th).579 According to PLA records from archives, Indian casualties during the war
were 4,897 killed or wounded and 3,968 captured.580 Indian records differ on this, with
Indian Defense Ministry in 1965 showing 1,383 Indian soldiers were killed, 1,696
missing in action, and 3,968 soldiers captured, and 1,047 wounded.581 In comparison,
PLA casualties in the war were quite small, with 722 Chinese soldiers killed and 1,697
wounded. In addition, no soldier of the PLA was captured during the war, a rarity in the
history of warfare.582 The PLA did all of this damage to the Indian Army with the
equivalent of a reinforced corps (army), deployed and massed at the critical points along
the border.
...
from the examination of the combat decorations given for bravery in the Sino-Indian
War, my sense is that PLA leaders lead from the front. Party membership seems to lead
to leadership behaviors in other situations, and the responsibility that seems to flow from
being part of an elite organization like the communist party appears to makes soldier and
leaders take greater risk. The work of the GPD in promoting unit lineage and history
probably also contributes to the willingness of ordinary soldiers and leaders to take
extraordinary risks. The award data seems to imply that political commissars, directors
and instructors, if one can extrapolate from this case, stay out of the way of the
commander in combat. They are probably of more help than a hindrance. And the
influence of the CCP and its members is positive. If commissars were leading “from the
front” one would expect them to have had a much higher casualty rate and rate of awards
for heroism.
...
In the past decade there have been systematic efforts by the GPD to regularize and
systematize its role in personnel and the military discipline system of the PLA.586 As
early as 1988, the GPD and the military procurate system began to reach out to Western
armies to examine how due process and family law-related issues are managed.587 The
GPD has taken on more of a role as a career management organization encouraging the
PLA to become a more professional military force with a stronger emphasis on military
skills.
Click to expand...
 
szbd

szbd

Junior Member
King_Comm said:
Political officers are as competent militarily as the military officer as they have to meet similar criteria and underwent the same military education and training, they are expected to take over command if the commander becomes a casualty, and during peace time they are in charge of the education and welfare of the soldiers. The idea of a know-nothing political officer meddling with military decision making is merely a product of cold war propaganda.
Click to expand...

No, not the same. If a captain were to be promoted to a major military officer, he goes to command academy for 2 years' study, while a political officer goes to political academy. To be a general, every candidate goes to high level command academy, no matter military or political officer.
 
Gollevainen

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Well most of you drag blindly on the fact that political commanders dont intervene into the battle decission and happily think that its OK by then, and our "rebel" ideas are just evil western propaganda....

But the proplem of the Party comitee/dual commander role isent just from the military side of commanding of unit. Military units leading and managing, even in battle conditions is 80% of normal leadership and 20% of actually leading it in the battle.
The chain of command however needs to be clear and flexible even in the non-fighting conditions becouse the major decissions that are made by that time are the major decissions that leads into units succes in the actuall battle. Ignoring this part by you who support the system, you almoust claim like that military commander only needs to know the tactics of fighting, and nothing more....but that isent just how it works.

Leading of military unit is leadership in all field, and in PLA units, this leadership is divided, mengled with joint decission phase that naturally couses dissagreements by the participants and therefore creates a friction inside the unit. And anyone that has had atleast some leadingship training knows that friction between commanding elements is the root to all misshap in any community, if it is a commercial firm or a military unit.


Other major disadvantage in Chinese systems, and expecially in PLANs case is the too stiff rank system that also seem to have dual mode, eq. certain type of units and also ships are tied to a certain rank that dictates of whats the units or ships position in the chain of command is.
For land units, tied by tactical purposes into unit echelons it is fine and doesent appear so bad system, but by Navy, its still the main element that makes PLAN really an "army's navy" not a fleet. Where the ships are so tigthly attached to their commanding hierarchy and "divisional an regimental" units that are drawn directly from army commanding philosophy, it has led suprise difficoulties when PLAN has begun to forming test units suited for oceanig combat.
 
zaky

zaky

Junior Member
In my opinion this question has deeper roots. This problem is back in Platonian times and the problem is old like the first armies. Platon formed his eternal question: who guard the guards?
The communist to safe his power, share it in thee part: secret services, army and the party.
The political officer’s most important duty is to guard the party from the army.
If they don’t control the military it can overthrow them like in many south American countries.
 
Gollevainen

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
well there are obvious reasons why the system exist (and wich fall under the ban of political subjets -decission:D :D )
But the main consern is that how such survive in modern battle field where the traditional elements of Chinese communist military victories are becoming more and more inrelevant.
 
King_Comm

King_Comm

Junior Member
VIP Professional
szbd said:
No, not the same. If a captain were to be promoted to a major military officer, he goes to command academy for 2 years' study, while a political officer goes to political academy. To be a general, every candidate goes to high level command academy, no matter military or political officer.
Click to expand...
==That's because below the regiment level, they are not even real political officers, its 教导员（instructors) for battalions and 指导员（counselors) for companies, who are subordinated to the military commander, only for regiments and above is there a political commissar that holds the same rank as the military commander.

Gollevainen, the dual command system only exists for regiments and above, at that level, even at the regiment and division level, the commander and the commissar have different jobs.
 
A

AmiGanguli

Junior Member
Gollevainen said:
And anyone that has had atleast some leadingship training knows that friction between commanding elements is the root to all misshap in any community, if it is a commercial firm or a military unit.
Click to expand...

Certainly not true in business. Generally the opposite is true - businesses fail because the leaders are unable or unwilling to take advice or delegate responsibility. They tend to follow failing strategies long after those around them have figured out that they just won't work.

I can't comment much about the rest of this, but I thought I do think it's worth making the point that the "absolute centralized authority" model is definitely not the best one in all situations.
 
zaky

zaky

Junior Member
I think this system is more for peacetime period then real war time.
If I remember right, the soviets abolish this system for a period of time in the heat of WWII. After the end of WWII introduce again.
The commisars remain but without real power they gain back after the end of hostilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top