Over the past year, China has witnessed a quiet but telling process — the removal and investigation of high-ranking officials from ethnic minorities who held key political positions in autonomous regions. These developments have taken place in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Guangxi, signaling a shift in the Party-state’s approach to managing ethnic representation. While officially presented as part of the ongoing anti-corruption campaign, these purges carry an additional political undertone. They indicate a recalibration of how the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) understands loyalty, governance, and the very idea of autonomy in minority regions.
At least three major cases stand out. In January 2025, Qi Zhala, an ethnic Tibetan and former chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Region, was placed under investigation for “serious violations of discipline and law.” He was later expelled from the Party and accused of taking bribes, engaging in “superstitious practices,” and failing to uphold Party values. In May 2025, Lan Tianli, an ethnic Zhuang who served as the chairman of the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, met a similar fate. And in the previous month, Wang Lixia, an ethnic Mongol and chairwoman of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, came under disciplinary scrutiny. Each of these figures occupied the highest administrative position available to non-Han officials within China’s political hierarchy. Their simultaneous downfall within a short period is striking both in pattern and symbolism.
The Reassertion of Central Control
At first glance, these purges appear consistent with Xi Jinping’s long-running anti-corruption drive. However, their timing and shared ethnic context invite a deeper reading. Unlike routine disciplinary actions, these investigations targeted minority leaders whose promotion had previously symbolized the Party’s commitment to ethnic inclusion. Since the reform era, the CPC’s ethnic policy has relied on a delicate balance: preserving nominal regional autonomy while maintaining strict political centralization. In practice, this meant promoting minority cadres who were culturally representative but politically loyal. The recent purges suggest that this balance is being redefined in favor of total ideological conformity.
This trend is not entirely new. Since 2020, Beijing has shown growing unease with any expression of ethnic particularism. The replacement of Mongolian with Mandarin in key school subjects in Inner Mongolia, the tightening of controls over religious institutions in Tibet, and the reorganization of cadres in Xinjiang all point to a broader ideological project that subordinates ethnic identity to a unified national identity defined by the Party. In this context, the removal of minority leaders functions both as a disciplinary act and as a warning: even symbolic expressions of difference or weak ideological alignment are no longer tolerated.
The Strategic Logic of Conformity
From a governance perspective, these purges reflect the Party’s increasing preference for ideological reliability over local rootedness. The CPC’s cadre system has always valued loyalty, but the current pattern suggests that local legitimacy — particularly when rooted in ethnic or regional identity — has paradoxically become a liability rather than an advantage. The message is unambiguous: minority leaders must serve as the Party’s representatives to their communities, not their communities’ representatives to the Party.
This shift also carries strategic meaning. The central authorities have long feared that ethnic regions could become centers of alternative identity politics, particularly during times of economic slowdown or regional inequality. By weakening the autonomy of local leadership, Beijing minimizes the risk of deviation from central directives. The logic is preventive — yet it also exposes the limits of China’s much-celebrated model of “regional autonomy under unified leadership.” What remains is autonomy in name, without meaningful power over policy or personnel.
Domestic and International Implications
Domestically, the centralization of ethnic governance threatens the fragile consensus that has sustained China’s model of ethnic management since the 1980s. Deprived of genuine autonomy, regional governments risk becoming mere administrative extensions of Beijing, losing their mediating role between the center and local populations. Such homogenization, combined with cultural policies that dilute local traditions and languages, could breed latent discontent.
Internationally, these developments complicate China’s efforts to present itself as a harmonious, multiethnic state. The Party’s external messaging consistently emphasizes “ethnic unity” and “diverse harmony” as proof of domestic stability and governance capability. Yet the pattern of minority purges undermines this narrative — especially when viewed alongside reports of surveillance, re-education, and assimilation campaigns. The contradiction between the rhetoric of inclusion and the reality of control becomes increasingly evident.
Conclusion
The recent purges of minority leaders in China cannot be explained solely as anti-corruption measures. They represent a deeper political trend: the consolidation of ideological conformity and the dismantling of the symbolic autonomy that once underpinned China’s system of multiethnic governance. By removing officials who embodied ethnic representation, the CPC signals that loyalty to the center outweighs cultural heritage or local legitimacy.
This strategy may deliver short-term political stability, but it carries significant long-term risks. It alienates minority communities, weakens the credibility of the Party’s inclusion narrative, and erodes the delicate balance between autonomy and control that has defined China’s ethnic governance model for decades. The Party’s challenge is no longer merely maintaining discipline — it is preserving trust in a system where representation itself has become suspect.
Read “Zamin” on Telegram!
