The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has changed our understanding of political and social reality. Only recently has AI been brought up in the context of Governance, primarily in relation to the development of National Strategies.
A conceptual and interpretive analysis of China's strategic AI documents (MIC25 and AIDP 2017) is conducted, situating them within the country's political and ideological framework to explore AI's role as an ideological instrument reshaping global power dynamics.
AI has a transformative character, which is a global challenge. While approaching it as performativity or using a human-centric approach has altered the dynamics, China is undoubtedly setting the benchmark for AI. Analysis of China's key strategic documents shows that AI is embedded within a Governance model focused on centralized control, ideological alignment and social stability, using technological innovation to reinforce political legitimacy and contest liberal governance norms.
This paper discusses the return of ideology in the context of geopolitics, highlighting China's use of AI as a key example of how it may shift the balance of power. Instead of using AI as an instrument, China mostly applies it as a means of enforcing a power model. China mainly relies on AI as a method to advance a model of power, rather than merely utilizing it as an instrument. As the world moves beyond the US-led liberal international order, the AI battle can be understood fundamentally as a battle of ideologies.
The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming a topic of increasing discussion in the scientific community worldwide. It goes without saying that the relationship between argumentation and political and Governance theories could not be left unchanged. In this regard, AI is associated with the function of National Strategies that have been formed in nearly all countries (
These National Strategies have been put into action in the name of AI's influence, which has allowed the political dimension to play an active part and to raise a nation's standing in the world (
The term “ideology” describes a systematic set of values, ideas and principles that influence how individuals and groups view, organize and react to outside factors. It is a framework that operates to exercise and justify power, authority and legitimacy rather than just being a theoretical concept (
Thus, the argumentation about AI Governance and how it will be perceived in regard to its potential uses have created a blurry representation of how decision-making centers will handle AI and which country will set the standard. Although the United States (US) and China are the primary players, the European Union (EU) has also taken appropriate action. The EU's most recent effort—in 2024 (
In order to map the aforementioned context of AI Governance, the current study uses China as a distinctive case study. The digital transformation, particularly through AI, offers—as China acknowledged early on—economic and military (
Therefore, the focus is on China as one of the major actors in the field of AI Governance, particularly regarding its use of AI as an instrument of political influence. However, what China brings to the surface, in my opinion, should be analyzed through a liberal perspective that goes beyond the boundaries of the American context. It is essential that China continues to participate in international summits—such as the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris (2025), the AI Seoul Summit (2024), and the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park (2023)—as well as to host and lead initiatives like the Wuzhen Summit (2024). Staying up to date on the latest innovations in this field and adapting AI principles to its specific context are equally important. Over the years, China has become increasingly integrated into the international scene and has played an important role, though it was not initially seen as an immediate threat. During Xí Jìnpíng's administration, this started to change, particularly after he envisioned AI as a tool for social and political action at all levels. The geopolitical narrative is updated in the name of technological and economic progress while staying true to the country's values. China has therefore instrumentalized AI through concerted efforts that are undoubtedly not new. As early as 2014 (
Nowadays, there is a lot of interest in the debate concerning the AI revolution. Naturally, the dispute takes on different weight in the context of governance when the state's regulatory role gains substantial ground through National Strategies. It is then that each country proceeds to a race for AI, while at the global level the reference indicates to the “AI Cold War” (
Consequently, the definition of AI has been at the center of attention, since it needed to be approached based on a worldwide consensus. Depending on the perspective emphasized, the understanding of AI is subject to variation. Concerns of transparency, bias, and accountability are raised by the argument over how this should be described as a set of data related to algorithm use. It is the broad argument on machine learning and data science. AI, on the other hand, has been defined by its social and economic effects, which are not always positive. In that framework, there are also two distinct aspects of AI that should be considered while attempting to fully understand it: AI as a definition for algorithms and AI as a metric for improving citizenship (
It is also noteworthy that, as the concept of “AI” is explored, the human element is progressively less emphasized (
In that sense, the term “Responsible AI” (
Thus, the link between Governance and AI is twofold: first, it deals with the conditions that AI can produce, and second, it involves the potential uses of AI. Different societies certainly take different approaches to this interaction. Undoubtedly, from a research perspective, it is viewed through the lens of “good” Governance in any setting. Good Governance is the element that unites these actions. Certainly, it has to be associated with instruments that would integrate public values in this context of Governance (
The methodology of this paper centers on the comprehension of the aforementioned argumentation in order to highlight the importance of the new geopolitical map where the players need to adapt. Geopolitical power struggles have social, ideological, and material components. In that context, the discussion about the return of geopolitics (
Since World War II, the US has had a major impact on the liberal international order founded on the principles of multilateralism, the rule of law, individual rights, democratic governance and free markets (
The Chinese government fosters a different system in which social harmony and control of the collective are prioritized over individual rights, rather than inclusive of public values in the liberal sense. Governance mechanisms like the SCS, which demonstrate how political compliance is incentivized and dissidence is sanctioned, operationalize the state's ideological project (
Through a conceptual and interpretive lens, the analysis addresses the political environment shaping these strategies by explicitly placing the texts within China's political system and ideological framework. This viewpoint makes it possible to recognize AI as an ideological instrument that is influenced by, reinforcing China's state-centric Governance model. Accordingly, within the methodological framework, it is only after the analysis of the selected texts that the concept of ideology is addressed—not in abstract or general terms, but in specific relation to these strategic texts and the context of China.
Even while China had started comparable attempts and incorporated them into its National Strategies as early as 2014, it was not until 2020 that the ideological foundations of these actions received substantial attention. This paper is designed to strengthen theoretical boundaries by concentrating on the Chinese example of comprehending Governance through its technological base rather than providing a comparative analysis of how the US understands China's actions. China has already changed course since the beginning of Xí Jìnpíng's presidency in relation to the presidency of Hu Jintao and his predecessors (
Once the theoretical framework of the discussion has been determined, the limits and applicable AI perspectives will establish the boundaries and define the key connection with the idea of ideology. Using the strategic texts MIC25 and AIDP 2017 as my primary sources,
Having established the theoretical framework, the case of China will be examined using the two guiding documents (MIC25 and AIDP 2017) that were chosen. This will enable us to recognize the goals, perceptions and operationalization of the theoretical concepts in action. These two strategic documents have been selected because they represent important initiatives in China's AI strategy: MIC2025, which serves more as a systematic roadmap and AIPR 2027, which focuses exclusively on the development of AI. Their official status and comprehensiveness make them especially valuable for analyzing the ideological foundations of China's AI strategy. The study, employing a conceptual and interpretive method, explores how terms like “Governance,” “Values' and “Ethics” are discursively constructed in the documents. As ideological instruments that include political meaning and reflect normative frameworks, MIC25 and AIDP 2017 are examined rather than merely described.
China advances an alternative model of Governance based on centralized political control, technological self-reliance, and social stability. This model prioritizes the integration and operationalization of public values through technologically driven state intervention with first priority to societal harmony, ideological cohesion and top-down control over individual liberty. The forthcoming MIC25 and AIDP 2017 analysis demonstrates the manner in which such ideas are incorporated into strategic plans and exposes the ideological architecture guiding China's AI Governance.
Despite the long-standing recognition of Silicon Valley's near-possessive power, China has demonstrated a strong political resolve to take the lead in AI. China recognized early on that AI has the potential to revolutionize society and that it is more than just a competition for technological superiority (
Updates on AI applications in recent years have highlighted China's increasing importance and impact, when previously there was less focus on the country's current status and achievements. Furthermore, in order to examine the evolution of AI's progress, the official texts of China's administration are frequently subjected to a comparative political analysis with other texts that exist globally, excluding, however, the specific context in which they are created and referred. This research highlights the political values embedded in these texts, providing an ideological reading that supports current functional and technical assessments, in contrast to previous studies like
Although China presents a unified National Strategy and approach for AI Governance in its official documents, this is represented at various levels and in various texts, adjusting according to different situations and constantly prepared for modifications or corrective actions under the umbrella of sharing a common approach. The singular term “National Strategy” is used to emphasize the overarching and unified strategic vision that guides China's approach to AI, while the plural “National Strategies” refers to the diverse, multi-level plans—such as the MIC25 and AIDP 2017—that are continuously refined and updated in alignment with this common framework. In the Chinese example, the existence and significance of multiple levels of its National Strategy for AI Governance were established early on as a priority. But, despite China's early development of National Strategy (
China has built a number of initiatives at the National Strategy and partnership levels that aim to practically implement AI tools in a wide range of situations. At this level, infrastructure development or financing through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
It is impossible to view China's vision of leading through the transformative role of AI in fragments. Thus, its National Strategy is connected to the actions and milestones it has already established (mostly) since 2014, putting them into practice through particular political efforts that are continuously modified to the nation's indicators and informed by global developments. The integration of evolutionary characteristics presents an execution-based Governance paradigm. With the goal to make this accessible, the MIC25 and AIDP 2017 will serve as the foundation, highlighting the central planning under both short-term and long-term planning circumstances and reflecting concerns in areas like the SCS. The two main pillars of these plans are international competitiveness and domestic legitimacy challenging the liberal democratic approaches.
Although it is evident that China has taken a number of steps to control algorithms, its definition of the enhancement of citizenship is different from Western norms. Rather than being a “new form” of Governance, this alternative form of Governance is an indication of an intention to depart from the Western-liberal perspective on the political aspect of Governance. This demonstrates that what is referred to as an “alternative form of Governance” is actually a technical modification to long-standing authoritarian practices, rather than a departure from the past. Accordingly, it is necessary to address the SCS (
Actually, compared to other systems based on Western standards, SCS has a greater normative impact, demonstrating the existence of ideological criteria (
Its strategic texts are a reflection of the nation's internal and exterior purchasing strategy. Promoting the nation's principles as an essential component of the participants' citizenship at the national level, with little place for compromise to liberal viewpoints. These texts are framed to show that China's priorities and values must be understood on their own terms rather than judged against foreign standards. Beijing's efforts, such as MIC25 emphasized its competitiveness with countries like, South Korea, Japan, and Germany, where especially the case of Germany's (Industry 4.0) model served as an inspiration (
In an effort to change the technological landscape of the nation, MIC25 was introduced in May 2015. This text essentially signaled the start of China's systematic effort to use past knowledge to guide its actions in accordance with AI. This text laid the foundation for all following acts. It can even be characterized as a blueprint for China's tech dominance. MIC25 drew significant international criticism, particularly in terms of its implications for global power dynamics. In response, China revised key elements of the initiative in 2018 to modify its strategic messaging. As exemplified by MIC25, China has consistently employed an intertextual approach to its National Strategies, aligning various official texts under a coherent, evolving strategic vision. Germany's plan at the time (
Secondly, reference is made to the 10 distinct areas that Beijing's initiatives aim to refer to as applications of AI (
The timeline: 2015-2018-2021-2025-2030-2049 (
The MIC25 roadmap.
| 2015 | Establishment of foundational AI pillars | Groundwork laid for national AI development |
| 2018 | Pillars modified per international standards, retaining national values | Balance between global integration and domestic priorities |
| 2021 | Initial shifts appear, highlighting a prosperous society narrative | Vision of national progress tied to AI |
| 2025 (target year) | Publication of reports on accomplishments | Assessment phase: measuring impact and tracking progress |
| 2030 | Evidence of reduced foreign dependence on AI tech | Strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty |
| 2049 | Goal of achieving global technological leadership | Culmination of long-term AI vision: leadership and innovation dominance |
Internationally recognizing the role of National Strategies, Beijing invoked state intervention, demonstrating that this approach combines domestic political traditions with global technological engagement rather than following global liberal norms. The global consensus regarding National Strategies for AI does not say that this should follow liberal guidelines. And in order to show why such a viewpoint was not necessary in the years 2015–2021, it focused on critical developing industries that will help to achieve (as intermediate stations) a balance between innovation and internal requirements and global engagement. This approach is outlined in the “14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development (2021–2025)” and its integrated “Vision for 2035” section (
The narrative of MIC25 was fully harmonized with the environment of international terminology and reflected the statements of the central political line in the name of the continuity that should govern Chinese society. With this tech leadership in mind, China positions itself not only in technological competition but also in ideological and normative contestation with the US, EU, Japan and South Korea.
Beijing has never been in favor of multilateral cooperation, and with this in mind, it is reshaping the landscape and highlighting the legitimacy of its actions amid recent actions under Trump's administration. Thus, China is working to increase its soft power through technological initiatives, particularly in the areas of AI and quantum computing (
Accordingly, similar to the time milestones, China builds on the ideological themes and milestones in MIC25, on the belief that each one will lead to the next. The initiative's ideological foundation explicitly prioritizes the state over the market in steering economic transformation, emphasizing quality and uniqueness in production, which aligns with the CCP's political objectives to maintain centralized control rather than promote market liberalization (
Ideological milestones in MIC25.
| State-led long-term planning | The state, not the market, should guide the direction of economic transformation | Emphasizes central planning and policy as primary factors of economic modernization |
| From “Made in China” to “Created in China” | The shift is not just economic but ideological, reflecting technological autonomy and a sense of nation | Builds China's visibility as a creator rather than merely a manufacturer and fosters national pride in innovation |
| Societal and bureaucratic alignment | National rejuvenation requires not only infrastructure, but a technically skilled and politically loyal bureaucracy and society | Highlights the need for human capital and ideological unity across institutions and citizens |
| Technological self-reliance as a source of national pride | Achieving self-reliance in key technologies is both economically essential and a symbol of modernization and sovereignty | Motivates strategic investment in R&D and domestic innovation to break foreign dependencies |
| Chinese modernization model | China's approach combines market mechanisms, industrial nationalism, and socialist governance-distinct from Western liberal capitalism | Promotes a distinct, Chinese-inspired socialist-based growth strategy |
| Strengthening global engagement | China must engage with the world, but as a strong, independent leader, not a follower | Places China in a position to influence global norms, trade, and technology rather than being a passive participant in the current international structures |
Therefore, from an ideological standpoint, technological independence also eliminates any ideological influence that might change a nation's ideals. Thus, while technological advancement can also influence, let alone change, traditional values, China is moving away from the latter in favor of the larger goal of exporting an AI-based Governance model, which further projects the ideological goal of treating China as the primary actor of influence in the world. That model advances China's idea of Governance abroad by using technology to monitor, influence, and control society both domestically and through international collaborations, thus reinforcing authoritarian rule (
In order to achieve the milestone of MIC25 with reference to the year 2018, China presented in 2017 the “New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan/AI Development Plan” (AIDP 2017), which focused on how the country would identify and embed its values and what might be prioritized. The AIDP 2017 emphasizes the state impact, reshaping the global power framework. In that framework, the idea of reasonable AI is developing and closely relates to the country's increasing focus on human-centered, ethical, and trustworthy AI—all of which are influenced by China's distinct social, political, and regulatory setting. The notion of ethical AI advancing individual rights is incompatible with China's history of utilizing AI for surveillance and social control (
The AIDP 2017 (
In order to maintain complete control over public information, the CCP has decided to establish control systems that will preserve its power. Rather than embracing universal ethical standards for the use of AI, it chose to establish rules that primarily restrict business activity without extending to the impact of these rules on the daily lives of citizens. Thus, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) was instrumental in the creation of the AIDP 2017, which included all of the nation's theoretical tools for addressing AI and connecting its past actions with its goals for 2030. In fact, a dedicated “AI Plan Promotion Office” (
The AIDP 2017 (
With a focus on data quality, China implemented major reforms in 2023 to strengthen and improve control over algorithms. The country's National Strategy included key concepts including truth, impartiality, diversity, and accuracy (
Although China has attended nearly every international summit on integrating ethical concepts into AI design and implementation, the embrace of fundamentally ethical principles has happened at a slower pace. The primary goal of incorporating such principles remains the need to ensure that algorithms are checked, so as to reduce the possibility of them escaping political monitoring (
By simultaneously fortifying and enhancing MIC25, the AIDP 2017 aimed to anticipate developments in AI and digital transformation (in 2020) to position China competitively relative to other countries by 2025. For that purpose, in the name of digital transformation, in 2022 the Chinese government proceeded to “东数西算” (Data in the East, Computing in the West;
The priority set is the control of data with the ultimate goal of efficiency and robustness as mechanisms. In this context, moral values were incorporated to serve the same purpose. The ethical principles are not recognized as self-values having a normative character, but exist as tools to serve social norms (collective wellbeing), as defined by the state apparatus with National Strategies as a vehicle. This conceptualization is consistent with China's Governance model, which holds that individual liberties must yield to collective order, which the CCP contends is necessary for maintaining national stability and unity, and that social harmony and regime legitimacy are maintained by central power (
Even in their later integration actions, ethical questions and dilemmas can be identified (
Thus, at the ethical level, Beijing has fostered collaborations between political and private actors in keeping with the purpose of National Strategy.
Both MIC25 and AIDP 2017 present a holistic and harmonized approach combining political control, state capacity and national identity—deliberately avoiding the language of risk and uncertainty (in contrast to the EU;
Conditions for ideological marginalization were established by the long-term lack of a clear ideological confrontation and the primacy of the economy over the political elements. The “on the end of ideology” (
The emotional implication that accompanies China's rise to power through AI further endorses this return of ideology. China's rise invites a reconsideration of ideology and how it reshapes our understanding of reality. This refers to the reassertion of a state-centric ideological framework, rather than to a revival of a single doctrinal system. China's continuous effort to distinguish itself in the field of AI is an expression of political discourse. In its case—as
By establishing challenging AI standards, Xí Jìnpíng—since taking power in 2012—has renewed the discussion over the West's decline. He articulates a worldview by imagining a pragmatic AI future where change is feasible. This rethinking takes place under the ideological framework of “authoritarian adaptability,” where ideological imperatives and technocratic Governance are combined (Heilmann and Shih 2013). AI is used to support ideological narratives without coming off as explicitly ideological. AI serves as an ideological infrastructure. In China, such infrastructure reinforces the authority of the Party by integrating political agendas into digital systems, as
In the case of China, it is also important to make the distinction between ideology as a theoretical construct in its reference environment and how any external actor interprets it. Its dynamics are demonstrated by the way it adjusts to the changing conditions while being influenced by both domestic and international factors. As it must be based on national values, it should actually promote national development as a whole. Therefore, it was expected from the start that the AI tool would be the most suitable for this task. AI-powered shaping ideology has been built on the idea of resolving political issues in the sake of social stability, which can lead to “ideological governance through rectification” (
The fact cannot be avoided that our perceptions (as citizens) of a situation are shaped by our presumptions and ideas, which ultimately determine the meaning we provide to reality. This makes AI, which is clearly not a closed system for exclusive use by only a few players, a field of ideological battle for its conquest. Each player refers to it using terms with social and political connotation, giving them different meanings. Thus, with the use of AI, terms such as “freedom,” “self-determination,” “equality,” and “democracy” come back to the fore to be defined from AI's perspective. However, this “perspective” is not AI's own; rather, it is created by the political system that uses it, which sets the parameters of meaning. Given that there has always been a great deal of discussion over these terms, it is likely that they will come up again when reinterpreted from an AI standpoint—especially in relation to China's role in shaping their use. In China's case, we can be even more certain that technology cannot be discussed without reference to its underlying values. The use of technology is never value-free, even though it may be neutral in theory (
Apparently, this process can also be interpreted as an opportunity for the liberal world to redefine its ideological foundations while China is reviving the material aspect of ideas and converting them into political action to influence reality through the transformative nature of AI. China demonstrates how social and historical circumstances develop an ideology using the example of AI. As a result, it offers an alternative viewpoint for understanding the world by affecting our perception of reality. The basis of this is the type of society that is envisioned through the narrative that technological development via AI goes beyond mere efficacy. China attempts to increase the coherence of the chosen principles by reflecting the shared experiences of people brought about by the use of AI in the name of a collaborative strategy for societal stability. Yet, this framing functions primarily as a rhetorical strategy to legitimize centralized, authoritarian leadership in the CCP than a genuine participatory process. In such circumstances, it generates new technological and regulatory frameworks for leadership determination that shift the global power dynamics. This shift suggests a multipolar future where normative and digital Governance models compete, with China favoring state-led, sovereignty-first AI frameworks over liberal-democratic ones. Increased dispersion of international AI standards and the emergence of alternative, non-Western Governance models are the likely results. Therefore, any examination of mainstream AI has to take into consideration its ideological dimensions, particularly in the wake of China's approach reshaping domestic Governance and global norms.
In this case, ideology plays a function that unifies theory and practice while highlighting its social nature. This is a Governance-oriented ideology prioritizing centralized control, state-directed development and narrative sovereignty, as appropriate to China's distinctive political tradition. Additionally, a strong focus is placed on the sense of belonging. In this interpretation, Beijing does not explicitly deny that this emphasis is a manifestation of power. Therefore, as long as the vehicle of mobilization of AI is strengthened, it will continue to be strengthened as a means of expression of the political system. Thus, the expression of this closed system of thought brings back to the forefront ideology. It is not merely an abstract reversion; rather, it represents a reaffirmation of a state-centric perspective that is rooted in principles of stability and strategic planning, which offers explanations as a neutral and objective construct. Nevertheless, this purported neutrality fulfills a rhetorical function (
While established ethical criteria are embedded in global discussions, they ultimately become integrated into—and shaped by—China's broader political agenda. This agenda illustrates how Governance principles, including technological superiority, policy centralization, and national cohesion, have been strategically included into AI regulation. As a result, the Chinese approach cannot be evaluated exclusively using external norms that disregard local conditions and the unique characteristics of the Chinese political and social landscape. Rather, it must be interpreted in the context of China's political system, where CCP supervision guides both normative frameworks and administrative operations. China has taken a methodical and multi-layered approach to regulating AI, and what is considered political in this context is mostly decided by its institutional and ideological framework. This encompasses the interlinking of principal regulatory entities with ideological mandates that position technological progress as a mechanism for preserving the legitimacy of the regime. The institutional architecture, based on entities like the State Council, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and the Central Comprehensively Deepening Reforms Commission (CCDR), guarantees AI Governance is consistent with centralized power and socialist values and is an example of the CCP's direct control (
The foundation of AI Governance is the shared involvement of all stakeholders who have participated in building the subject regulatory framework over the years, following a political agenda established by the government. This is also part of the initiative of the Central Science and Technology Commission (CSTC), which in spring 2023 undertook the coordination between various stakeholders and research institutions, with the aim of developing national strategic texts for AI Governance, in line with new developments (
Ideology and China in the context of AI governance.
| Ideology as structure | Deeply established in the Party-state structure and strengthened by national cohesion and Confucian principles | Centralized power and continuity serve to legitimize stability and Governance |
| Pragmatic ideology | AI is employed to address political issues (such as stability and social control) without explicitly stating a dogmatic ideology | Provides an adaptable structure that harmonizes National Strategy and technology with ideology |
| Materialization of ideology | AI becomes the technological vehicle through which political values are implemented (e.g., Social Credit System, surveillance) | Demonstrates how ideology is made tangible; it is made real through strategic steps, tech and infrastructure |
| Challenge to liberal universality | Challenges Western assumptions that Governance can be value-free or neutral | Forces global re-evaluation of concepts like democracy, freedom, and equality in AI discourse |
| Ideological adaptation | Adaptable reaction to shifting national and global circumstances (iterative strategy adjustment) | Demonstrates that ideology in China is not static but strategic and responsive |
| AI as ideological infrastructure | Technologies are created and employed to manage information, strengthen legitimacy, and support political narratives | Blurs the line between tech deployment and political messaging; integrates ideology with functionality |
| An alternative to liberal hegemony | Offers a State-led, sovereignty-first, technocratic-authoritarian Governance model, combining digital infrastructure with ideological control | Raises the question of whether this centralized model represents a viable global alternative—or a systemic threat—to liberal democratic norms |
Given that the debate has a broad scope, the parameters and limitations of the analysis are clearly outlined to underscore how AI is particularly adaptable for ideological use due to its fundamental architecture of large data and algorithms and how this adaptability has been intentionally used in China to reinforce CCP narratives, connecting this technological tool firmly to the ideological setting. Technological competition is a strategic move and this is not only true for China. The aim of the study has been to build the case for China's ideological application of AI by reviving the ideological discussion and redefining the geopolitical map through a focused analysis of China's example, rather than by comparing it to the US, where it is widely used. It has illustrated a Governance framework centered on centralized, party-led control that integrates technological innovation with ideological control to project influence globally and contest liberal Governance norms. This approach moves away from treating China's case as merely a particular revival of ideology.
This study contributes to understanding how China's core AI strategy documents—primarily MIC25 and the AIDP 2017—embed ideological concepts and state-driven goals, reflecting a broader return of ideological authority in shaping China's Governance model. Moving beyond technical clarifications, it critically engages with the integration of AI development into CCP discourses, centralized authority and China's broader geopolitical agenda. Through analysis of narratives around social stability and collective wellbeing, the study maintains a balanced perspective that acknowledges China's technological achievements while also highlighting the political imperatives that drive them. Further research could explore how these ideological imperatives inform the appeal of China's Governance model beyond its borders. Additional studies could utilize quantitative methods like linear regression and comparative cross-national analysis to further the understanding of how China's approach challenges liberal-democratic ideals and to systematically assess the role of ideological narratives on AI Governance indicators worldwide.
Regardless of geopolitical borders, AI is articulated and interpreted in terms of social benefit. Therefore, in China's case, AI—as both a process and a structure—is presented in strategic papers as “AI for all,” (
Despite a clear delay in the incorporation of ethical principles into China's approach, whether in rhetorical narratives or in practical implementation, their inclusion has been primarily linked to data control, which presents issues relating to accountability, transparency, and bias. The primary emphasis is on the effects on society of the concentration of power in particular groups which may not always reflect the values of central administration. Here, the dominant national ideology, centered on CCP's authority, stability and collective order, defines how Governance is framed. These ideological foundations impact the notion that governance in general has inherent value, stressing the importance of public engagement but only as a way to negotiate the social meaning of AI within Party-defined bounds rather than as a source of power checks.
China views AI as a vertical axis of National Strategy, in contrast, for example, to the EU, which takes a more horizontal and cohesive structured approach. Unlike the EU, China does not implement a single regulatory framework for AI. Instead, it follows a tactic of continuous and selective corrections, integrating AI into the broader plan to strengthen national power and technological superiority. However, the absence of a uniform regulatory approach does not mean the absence of political intentions. On the contrary, China's choices are based on the pursuit of information control, with the aim of maintaining social stability, a fundamental political goal with roots in CCP ideology, which portrays AI-powered Governance and dissent management as necessary for maintaining national cohesion and regime legitimacy. This approach is accompanied by a continuous effort to adapt the regulatory framework to reflect evolving domestic and global conditions. The ability of countries to adjust to ongoing change is essential, as it highlights the “economic, social, and institutional realities” of each nation (
As I have questioned elsewhere (
From this perspective, the analysis suggests that rejecting China's achievements outright offers limited insight. The results it has achieved are undeniable and cannot be overlooked. It is crucial to view the Chinese experience as an example of how AI Governance can be implemented—acknowledging, of course, the specificities, divergences, and potential risks that come with it. When current alliances that need to be strengthened are unable to communicate effectively about the use of AI, China is positioned to transform the world and lead innovations. The objective of a global model of AI Governance is the subject of much attention, yet evidence suggests it may not be feasible. Likewise, prior efforts and the other consensus pillar—such as the necessity of ethical AI leadership or Governance- present significant challenges. It is apparent that conventional approaches would be insufficient and China recognized this challenge early on. China actually demonstrates with its example that we must consider more than just the straightforward instrumentalization of AI, as it transforms not just the economic landscape but also the context in which the global political system functions.
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
DP: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Edited by:
Reviewed by:
Within that framework, the president's speeches, which could profit as well from a different style of research, will not be analyzed here, although they undoubtedly influence the formulation of the texts being studied.
Following the official website of the Central People's Government of China (
While there is no denying the importance of the BRI and its connection to digital diplomacy—a strategic plan aimed at strengthening China's reputation—a thorough discussion of it is outside of the scope of the current study.
Although important political and ideological concepts have their origins in Confucian philosophy and tradition, their current interpretations can vary significantly, particularly in state discourse. Concepts such as harmony and trust are also situated within this framework.
This has also led to and still causes local concerns about job loss. This paper extends beyond an understanding of the criticism of AI and the claim that it reduces the need for human employees, which is currently being debated in China (
The intertextuality of these texts has not been sufficiently taken into account in previous research by linking them to the political aspect of these narratives in the name of sovereignty, using a tool that was not initially accepted as having the capacity to play a significant role with an ideological connotation.
The Ideological State Apparatus (ISA 2.0) can be also part of this argumentation.