The issue of the view on political achievements has been emphasized at multiple important occasions: the Central Economic Work Conference at the end of last year, the Fifth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection at the beginning of this year, and the opening ceremony of the special seminar for principal leading cadres at the provincial and ministerial level on January 20 this year.
The profound considerations behind establishing and practicing a correct view on political achievements were explained: “The view on political achievements is a fundamental issue, concerning the principle of serving the public and governing for the people.” “In the opening year of the ’15th Five-Year Plan,’ whether in formulating plans or deploying implementation, a correct view on political achievements is essential. As leading bodies at the provincial, city, county, and township levels will undergo successive changes, emphasizing the view on political achievements is also highly pertinent.”
During the “15th Five-Year Plan” period, strategic opportunities coexist with risks and challenges, and uncertain, unpredictable factors are increasing. The more complex the situation, the more likely it is to breed thoughts of “seeking quick results” and “seeking visible achievements.” The “first lesson” of the opening year once again emphasizes curbing the impulse for political achievements, carrying deeper significance.
At the Democratic Life Meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee at the end of last year, the statement that “Communists are materialists, and pragmatism is an essential character” left a deep impression.
Pragmatism and a correct view on political achievements are interconnected and internally unified. Without the support of a pragmatic character, a correct view on political achievements is empty talk; without a correct view on political achievements, pragmatism may turn into mechanical “taskism,” or even the “refined-ism” or “selfish-ism” of creating appearances and numbers.
Several manifestations of a misplaced view on political achievements—departmentalism, seeking grandiose achievements, falsification, and shirking responsibility—were analyzed in detail. Regarding shirking responsibility, it was pointedly noted: “On one hand, new officials ignore old accounts; on the other hand, they disregard difficult problems in work, passing the buck to their successors.”
What is a correct view on political achievements?
“It requires us to proceed from reality, act in accordance with objective laws, and through scientific decision-making and hard work, create achievements that can withstand the test of practice and history, truly benefit the people, and gain public recognition.”
What is an erroneous view on political achievements?
“It proceeds from personal or small-group interests, characterized by impatience, eagerness for quick success, falsification, and reckless action, engaging in ‘vanity projects’ and ‘achievement projects,’ leaving behind burdens and hidden dangers, and causing strong dissatisfaction among the people.”
Defining these two views on political achievements also serves as an “ideological calibration” for the broad ranks of Party members and cadres. The subtle signs were observed: “In recent years, some localities and departments have exhibited problems in planning, such as detachment from reality, blind conformity, escalating targets recklessly, impetuousness, simple ‘outsourcing,’ and shoddy work. These must be prevented and corrected.”
The view on political achievements encompasses work methods. The guidance was targeted: “We must improve the differentiated assessment and evaluation system” and “prevent the vicious cycle of ‘officials emerging from numbers and numbers emerging from officials.'”
The view on political achievements encompasses work style. Whatever is beneficial to the Party and the people must be pursued without shying away from difficulties or evading responsibility, acting boldly and resolutely.
At the opening ceremony, the emphasis on “vigorously promoting the spirit of struggle” established a clear orientation for practical action: “Cadres who detour when encountering contradictions, lower their heads when facing difficult problems, shrink back when seeing risks, and fail to draw their swords at critical moments, as well as cadres who are ambiguous and act as ‘nice guys’ in matters of right and wrong, must never be promoted.” “We must focus on cultivating and selecting outstanding cadres who dare to fight tough battles and are good at winning victories.”
