Wang Jianqin: On the Systematic Construction of a Long-term Mechanism for the Party's Work Style Improvement

Promoting the normalization and long-term effectiveness of the Party's conduct construction is a key measure for strengthening the building of the Party's long-term governing capacity and for upholding and strengthening the Party's overall leadership.

"The Recommendations of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Formulating the Fifteenth Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development," deliberated and adopted at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee held in October 2025, emphasized that "to govern the country, one must first govern the Party; only when the Party flourishes can the country be strong." The Plenary Session profoundly clarified that the more effective the management and governance of the Party is, the more powerful the guarantee for economic and social development will be. We must persist over the long term ^[1] with the tenacity and perseverance of being "always on the road," consistently advance the comprehensive and strict governance of the Party, resolutely implement the requirements of the Party's self-revolution, and promote the normalization and long-term effectiveness of the Party's conduct construction. The systematic construction of a long-term mechanism for the Party's conduct construction is grounded in continuous institutional innovation and governance practice. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the spirit of the central Eight-Point Regulations has played a key leading role with the momentum of "moving the pole to establish trust" ^[2]. It has not only profoundly reshaped the conduct and image of Party members and cadres but has also driven a profound transformation in conduct construction—from "regular grasping" to "long-term governance"—at the institutional foundation. This has become an important milestone in the maturation and formalization of the mechanism.

From the perspective of systematic construction, this article focuses on the institutional guarantee function performed by conduct construction in upholding and strengthening the Party's overall leadership. It examines how the creation of intra-Party regulations serves the Party's leadership, how institutional execution ensures that government decrees are unimpeded, and how the supervision system maintains the Party's authority. The aim is to provide an in-depth explanation of the deep logic and practical paths of the long-term mechanism for conduct construction in consolidating the Party's long-term governing position and ensuring the smooth implementation of the "15th Five-Year Plan."

I. Rule-based Orientation: Paradigm Innovation in the Creation of Intra-Party Regulations

Governing the Party in accordance with regulations is the institutional practice of comprehensively and strictly governing the Party. Its core lies in constructing a governance order where "governing the Party must rely on Party regulations," providing a fundamental institutional guarantee for the normalization and long-term effectiveness of conduct construction. As the first landmark intra-Party regulation formulated after the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the central Eight-Point Regulations not only led to historic achievements in conduct construction but also, through the act of "moving the pole to establish trust," established the basic principles of "adhering to political rule-making, problem-orientation, practical utility, and systems thinking" for the creation of intra-Party regulations in the New Era. This reflects a distinct political logic and governance wisdom, laying a solid institutional foundation and providing directional guidance for the systematic construction of the long-term mechanism for conduct construction.

(1) Moving the Pole to Establish Trust: The Foundational Creation of Intra-Party Regulations in the New Era

"The formulation and implementation of the central Eight-Point Regulations is an act of 'moving the pole to establish trust' for our Party in the New Era." This major political judgment profoundly reveals its milestone significance in the history of the development of intra-Party regulations. Its foundational nature lies not only in using "conduct" as the breakthrough point to effectively eliminate long-standing malpractices within the Party but also in establishing authority for the system. By using practice as a precursor, it has driven great innovations in institutional Party governance and governing the Party in accordance with regulations, marking a new stage in the management and governance of the Party.

1. Breaking ground with conduct construction, demonstrating the determination for self-revolution and systems thinking. Taking conduct construction as the breakthrough point for comprehensively and strictly governing the Party profoundly demonstrates our Party's political self-awareness in having the courage for self-revolution and its far-sighted systems thinking. Comprehensively and strictly governing the Party must start with the conduct issues that the masses feel strongly about. The formulation and implementation of the central Eight-Point Regulations are a vivid practice of this principle. It began with a precise response to prominent problems, succeeded through the powerful demonstration of "leading from the top," and finally deepened into a systematic governance transformation. This was not only a political declaration of the "moving the pole to establish trust" variety, setting a clear behavioral benchmark; it was also a practical strategy of using a "small entry point" to drive "grand changes." By passing down deep political requirements through specific constraints and using the "key minority" ^[3] to drive the action of the whole Party, it provided a systematic and effective practical paradigm for advancing the Party's self-revolution.

2. Pursuing the unity of institutional rigidity and governance efficacy. The important judgment that "the system of regulations and institutions possesses fundamental, overall, stable, and long-term characteristics" profoundly reveals the essential laws of institutional Party governance. In both institutional design and practice, the central Eight-Point Regulations have always been committed to achieving an organic unity of institutional authority and governance effectiveness. On one hand, the institutional design emphasizes rigid constraints to establish absolute authority. "Regulations are regulations; we do not add the words 'trial implementation,' because we want to show a resolute attitude and demonstrate that these regulations are rigid." This clear proclamation not only reflects the central Party leadership's firm determination to eliminate malpractices through the spirit of self-revolution but also establishes the fundamental principle that everyone is equal before discipline. On the other hand, the institutional content adheres to a problem-oriented approach to ensure practical utility. The regulations precisely focus on daily work processes such as investigation and research, meetings and activities, and documents and newsletters. They set clear norms for specific issues that the masses feel strongly about, such as "not posting or hanging banners and slogans" and "reducing traffic control." By using definitive wording such as "without exception," they draw red lines for behavior, forming a code of conduct rooted in practice that is easy to execute and monitor. Furthermore, by establishing a dynamic revision mechanism, the Eight-Point Regulations have achieved continuous development and enhanced efficacy. Since the 18th National Congress, it has become a political custom for the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee to deliberate on and revise the "Implementation Rules" during the first meeting of each term, ensuring the regulations stay closely aligned with practical developments and respond timely to new issues in conduct construction. It is precisely this organic unity of rigidity and efficacy that has endowed the conduct construction institutional system with powerful vitality, laying a solid foundation for the effective operation of the long-term mechanism.

3. Systematic construction and institutional collaborative innovation. The central Eight-Point Regulations are not only a rigid constraint for conduct construction but, with their powerful institutional radiation, have also become the core driving force for the systematic development of the intra-Party regulation system. Under their demonstration and guidance, the construction of intra-Party regulations has gradually transitioned from individual breakthroughs to systematic integration, and from focal rule-making to a comprehensive layout. Through the strategic guidance of three consecutive "Five-Year Plan Outlines for the Formulation of Central Intra-Party Regulations," a clearly layered and organically unified institutional system has been gradually constructed within the framework of "basic-backbone intra-Party regulations—supporting implementation rules—specialized institutional provisions." The core spirit of the Eight-Point Regulations has been systematically integrated into specialized regulations such as the "Regulations on Practicing Strict Economy and Opposing Waste in Party and Government Organs" and reflected in disciplinary requirements such as the "Regulations of the Communist Party of China on Disciplinary Actions." This has realized a functional expansion from single behavioral constraints to comprehensive institutional governance. It has effectively promoted the systematic integration and collaborative optimization of the intra-Party regulation system, marking the advancement of governing the Party in accordance with regulations toward a socialized and systematic new stage.

(2) Practical Innovation in the Formulation of Intra-Party Regulations

The institutionalization process of the spirit of the central Eight-Point Regulations is not only a landmark innovation in the methodology of formulating intra-Party regulations but also an active exploration centered on the systematic construction of a long-term mechanism for conduct construction. This innovation stems from a historical logic that meets practical needs and is reflected in a technical path refined for effectiveness. Together, these two drive the construction of intra-Party regulations to achieve a profound transformation from local experience to systematic integration, providing solid methodological support for the consolidation and formalization of the long-term mechanism for conduct construction.

1. The institutional evolution path of systematic construction. Under the continuous guidance of the spirit of the central Eight-Point Regulations, the construction of intra-Party regulations (especially in the fields of conduct construction and related discipline) has exhibited clear characteristics of staged evolution and systematic deepening, following a progressive logic of "focal breakthrough—comprehensive deepening—systematic integration." This spans from the initial period of institutional foundation-laying (2013–2017), focusing on building the "four beams and eight pillars" ^[4] of conduct construction; to the middle period of supporting refinement (2018–2022), promoting the full coverage and deepening of disciplinary constraints; to the current period of efficacy enhancement (2023–2027), dedicated to the systematic integration and collaborative synergy of the institutional system, forming a clearly directed and gradual path toward the institutionalization of conduct construction. The core through-line of this evolutionary process is a consistent value axis: the problem-orientation of keeping a close eye on chronic conduct ailments remains unchanged, the strict tone of maintaining disciplinary constraints remains unchanged, and the purpose of serving the people by responding to the concerns of the masses remains unchanged. This ensures the correctness and stability of the evolutionary direction of the long-term mechanism.

To ensure the scientific nature of the institutional system, a dual guarantee mechanism combining political review and compliance review has been gradually established. Political review takes the principle that "Party regulations are surnamed 'Party'" ^[5] as its fundamental tenet, ensuring that all regulations align with the Party's will and the spirit of the Eight-Point Regulations. Compliance review focuses on the connection and coordination between regulatory provisions, striving to eliminate normative conflicts and enhance the overall efficacy and executive synergy of the institutional system, clearing obstacles from the source for the collaborative operation of the long-term mechanism. The two types of mechanisms work in synergy, safeguarding the healthy development of the intra-Party regulation system from value orientation to technical details.

2. Technical innovation in the creation of norms. The central Eight-Point Regulations provide an important model for the high-quality creation of regulations in the New Era. The ultimate aim of its technical innovation lies in forming a practical and effective long-term mechanism. First is the shift in the philosophy of rule-making. Breaking through the traditional "comprehensive and all-encompassing" model, it creatively applied "small entry point" legislative techniques, closely following key links in conduct construction and establishing a rule-making path of "problem-orientation and prioritizing urgent needs." This shift has made intra-Party regulations closer to practical needs, significantly improving the timeliness and relevance of institutional supply and laying the foundation for the effective activation of the mechanism. Second is the breakthrough in technical specifications. In terms of content design, it emphasizes precision governance, formulating concise norms for specific issues such as official hospitality and meetings. In terms of procedural arrangements, it reflects efficiency and pragmatism, breaking through conventional formulation cycles to achieve rapid response. In terms of form, it emphasizes a practical orientation, using non-clause-based expressions. Although these rule-making techniques formally break through the routine requirements of the "Regulations on the Formulation of Intra-Party Regulations of the Communist Party of China," they are in essence major innovations aimed at enhancing the applicability and vitality of the system. Third is the structural optimization of the normative system. Using the spirit of the central Eight-Point Regulations as the core driver, supporting implementation rules were formulated, and supervision and guarantee mechanisms were continuously improved, constructing a clearly layered institutional cluster. This "core norm + supporting system" rule-making model retains the precision advantage of "small entry point" rule-making while achieving an overall improvement in governance efficacy through systematic integration—this is key to the system's operation. Fourth is the full-chain coverage of the operating mechanism. The text of the regulations uses definitive expressions such as "shall not under any circumstances" to manifest institutional rigidity, while simultaneously bringing daily activities such as investigation, research, and official hospitality fully into the scope of the norms, constructing a constraint system that covers the entire process of Party members and cadres performing their duties. This institutional design, which places equal emphasis on "high-voltage lines" and "benchmark rulers," effectively ensures that the requirements of conduct construction are routinized and concretized, providing a visible manifestation of the long-term mechanism taking root.

Practice shows that the construction of high-quality intra-Party regulations must adhere to three dialectical unities, which together constitute the basic conditions for the effective operation of the long-term mechanism for conduct construction: first, the unity of problem-orientation and systems thinking—solving specific practical difficulties while paying attention to the overall synergy of the institutional system; second, the unity of formal norms and practical efficacy—strictly following rule-making procedures while emphasizing the actual governance effects after the system is implemented; third, the unity of institutional rigidity and dynamic adaptability—enhancing the ability to respond to the developments of the times while maintaining the stability of disciplinary constraints. The rule-making methodology established by the central Eight-Point Regulations provides a demonstration model for the construction of intra-Party regulations in the New Era and establishes core criteria for building a scientific and effective long-term mechanism for conduct construction.

II. Internalizing the Foundation: Innovation in the Value Transmission Mechanism for Compliance with Intra-Party Regulations

The core of the long-term mechanism for conduct construction lies in building an effective value transmission system that promotes the internalization of disciplinary requirements into ideological self-awareness and their externalization into behavioral compliance. In this process, institutional practices represented by the spirit of the central Eight-Point Regulations have not only provided a fundamental basis for establishing the conduct transmission mechanism but have also profoundly reshaped the complete path of internalization—from disciplinary cognition to behavioral transformation—through their clear value orientation and continuous demonstration effect. This achieves a systematic transformation from abstract principles to behavioral norms, from external constraints to conscious compliance, and from one-way indoctrination to two-way infiltration. Its fundamental logic is to use institutional rigidity as a guarantee to stimulate the endogenous motivation of value leadership, constructing a progressive and cyclically reinforced behavior-shaping mechanism, thereby laying a solid ideological and behavioral foundation for the normalization and long-term effectiveness of conduct construction.

(1) Value Internalization: Mechanism Construction for Disciplinary Cognition and Behavioral Transformation

From the strategic height of the Party's governing foundation, the spirit of the central Eight-Point Regulations has clarified the value orientation of conduct construction and driven the construction of a systematic internalization path for intra-Party education. First is the formation of a combination of regular long-term learning and specialized study...

The "dual-drive" mechanism deeply integrates the spirit of the Eight-Point Regulations into centralized study and education, enhancing practical results through multiple stages such as theoretical research, interactive seminars, and warning education. Second, it smooths the progressive path of "learning, knowing, clarifying, and abiding by discipline," fusing the standpoint of "putting the people first" with the requirements of "tempering Party spirit" ^[6] to promote the transformation of disciplinary identification into conscious behavior. Third, it merges theoretical height with practical standards, constructing a cognitive system that provides both ideological guidance and operational instructions, thereby pushing disciplinary cognition from the abstract to the concrete. The resulting "cognition-identification-practice" mechanism drives Party members and officials to transition from fragmented understanding to systematic mastery, and from passive acceptance to active problem-solving, laying a solid ideological and behavioral foundation for the normalization and perpetuation of work style construction.

(2) Behavioral Regulation: Practical Innovation in Normative Compliance

1. Clarifying behavioral boundaries through list-based governance. The deep implementation of the spirit of the Eight-Point Regulations has propelled behavioral regulation within the Party to achieve a systematic leap from experiential management to standardized governance. Its key innovation lies in the widespread application of list-based management. By constructing a complementary list system—integrating a "normative basis list" of intra-Party regulations, a "matter list" clarifying the boundaries of powers and responsibilities, and a "negative list" detailing prohibitive provisions—abstract principles are transformed into behavioral guides that can be cross-referenced and followed. This clarifies both "advocatory benchmarks" and "prohibitive red lines," achieving comprehensive coverage and dynamic adaptation across various duty-performance scenarios. From the theoretical perspective of institutional construction, these three types of lists synergistically constitute a systematic institutional framework for behavioral regulation. They form a governance pattern that combines rigid constraints with flexible guidance, unifies punishment with prevention, and connects immediate response with long-term guarantees, providing a clear, stable, and operable behavioral framework for the long-term mechanism of work style construction.

2. Activating transmission mechanisms through exemplary leadership. The spirit of the Eight-Point Regulations established a governance logic of top-level demonstration, hierarchical transmission, and domain-wide deepening. The Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee took the lead by setting an example, driving Party organizations at all levels to build an action system of "benchmarking against the top and implementing level by level." To consolidate the demonstration effect, a dual-track institutional guarantee was systematically constructed. In terms of cadre management and incentives, the spirit of the Eight-Point Regulations was deeply integrated into the entire chain of cadre selection, cultivation, management, and utilization through a "positive incentive + reverse constraint" mechanism. The Regulations on the Selection and Appointment of Leading Party and Government Cadres treat the implementation of the Regulations as a critical basis, broadening the growth space for cadres with excellent work styles. Meanwhile, the Provisions on Promoting the Upward and Downward Movement of Leading Cadres list the lax implementation of the spirit of the Central Eight-Point Regulations as a key circumstance for "moving down," forming a rigid constraint. In terms of supervision, relying on the reporting system for personal matters of leading cadres ^[7], work style requirements are transformed into verifiable items, achieving precise and dynamic behavioral control. This mechanism has effectively purified the internal political ecosystem of the Party, strengthened Party-mass relations, led social trends, and ensured the effective transmission and continuous operation of the long-term mechanism for work style construction from the level of subjective initiative.

III. Establishing Authority through Rule Enforcement: Innovation in the Effectiveness Transformation Mechanism of Intra-Party Regulatory Enforcement

The key breakthrough in the long-term mechanism of work style construction lies in the systematic construction of a practical path that transforms institutional advantages into governance effectiveness. Its fundamental guarantee is a high-efficiency enforcement system that integrates responsibility transmission, dynamic governance, and deviation correction: unifying politics and professional work through a dual-track responsibility mechanism, promoting the transformation from passive discipline to active governance through targeted monitoring, and achieving a leap from individual correction to overall efficiency enhancement through systematic rectification.

(1) Responsibility Transmission: Dual-Track Synergy in Institutional Operation

1. A full-cycle enforcement responsibility system. The effective operation of the long-term mechanism for work style construction depends on a clear and rigorous responsibility transmission system. The issuance of the Regulations on the Responsibility System for the Enforcement of Intra-Party Regulations of the Communist Party of China (Trial) in 2019 was a milestone. It systematically constructed a five-level responsibility chain covering the vertical span from the central authorities to the grassroots, alongside a horizontal collaboration network that breaks down departmental barriers. It clearly defined the boundaries of four types of responsibility, including primary responsibility and lead responsibility, forming a full-cycle, multi-dimensional enforcement responsibility system. The Regulations on the Implementation of the Primary Responsibility for Comprehensively and Strictly Governing the Party by Party Committees (Party Leadership Groups), implemented during the same period, introduced innovations across three dimensions: political integration, responsibility architecture, and operational mechanisms. It deeply embedded the implementation of the spirit of the Eight-Point Regulations into the core responsibility list of Party committees (leadership groups), strengthening the transmission of political momentum and the assumption of responsibility; it clarified a division of labor model characterized by "the Secretary as the person of primary responsibility + leadership team members holding dual responsibilities for one post" ^[8]; and, through mechanisms such as coordination by leading groups, specialized research and judgment, and oversight of implementation, it built a full-process, traceable path for responsibility fulfillment.

In practice, these two responsibility mechanisms exhibit significant complementary characteristics: the responsibility system for the enforcement of intra-Party regulations focuses on the technical path of normative implementation, ensuring enforcement efficacy through standardized processes; the primary responsibility system for comprehensively and strictly governing the Party focuses on the overall fulfillment of political responsibility, highlighting the function of political leadership. The organic fusion of the two ensures both the normativity of institutional enforcement and the political nature of work style construction. Together, they build a multi-dimensional responsibility network that is "vertical to the bottom and horizontal to the edge," achieving the unification of political requirements and normative enforcement. This dual-track synergistic mechanism provides stable organizational guarantees and institutional momentum for the normalization and perpetuation of work style construction at the responsibility level.

2. Mechanism coupling of dual-responsibility synergy. The responsibility system for the enforcement of intra-Party regulations and the primary responsibility system for comprehensively and strictly governing the Party do not operate in isolation. Instead, they are highly integrated at the institutional, functional, and efficacy levels, forming a "dual-responsibility synergy" governance model with Chinese characteristics, injecting strong synergistic momentum into the long-term mechanism for work style construction.

This synergistic mechanism is reflected in the organic connection of five major operational links: In the coordination and horizontal linkage link, the General Offices of Party committees at all levels play a central role, promoting the simultaneous deployment and integrated implementation of regulatory enforcement and Party governance tasks, building a synergistic and efficient work matrix. In the information exchange link, relying on bidirectional communication channels between disciplinary inspection and supervision organs and Party organizations, information technology is used to establish a monitoring system for the precise identification of problems and the dynamic collection of responsibilities, ensuring shared information and timely response. In the evaluation-driven link, the fulfillment of dual responsibilities is treated as a core indicator for the assessment of leadership teams and cadres, highlighting quantitative standards such as the effectiveness of regulatory enforcement and the purification of the political ecosystem, while strengthening the rigid constraints of assessment results in cadre selection and management. In the joint supervision link, supervisory forces from commissions for discipline inspection and supervision, organization departments, and inspection agencies are integrated to establish a linked supervision mechanism for joint investigation of clues and joint governance of problems, forming a supervisory synergy. In the dual accountability link, "dual investigations of one case" (一案双查) are fully implemented, pursuing both the direct responsibility of the violator and, as appropriate, the primary and supervisory responsibilities of the relevant leadership, thereby building an accountability system where behavioral pursuit of responsibility and leadership accountability run in parallel, transmitting pressure level by level. These five major mechanisms connect systematically and work in the same direction, achieving a deep integration of institutional enforcement and political building. Not only does this significantly enhance the systematicity, synergy, and effectiveness of intra-Party regulatory enforcement, but it also solidifies the closed loop of responsibility transmission from the perspective of mechanism coupling, providing a stable and predictable institutional environment for the long-term mechanism of work style construction and ensuring the institutional foundation for the continuous release of governance效能.

(2) Innovative Paths for Transforming Governance Effectiveness

1. Dynamic monitoring and targeted governance. The implementation of the spirit of the Central Eight-Point Regulations has driven the formation of a collaborative work mechanism that integrates dynamic monitoring, risk early warning, and precise governance. Starting in 2013 with the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) pioneering a monthly data collection system at the provincial level, it gradually expanded to central and state organs, finally building a multi-dimensional supervision network covering the entire country. This process has driven a systematic optimization of governance models: in terms of method, shifting from passive response and post-hoc disposal to active early warning and prior prevention; in terms of scope, expanding from supervision of key fields to full-domain coverage; and in terms of means, upgrading from reliance on experiential judgment to data-driven precision measures. Its core advantages lie in efficient dynamic response and precise targeting capabilities. By establishing a refined indicator system covering key areas such as official receptions and travel management, and by innovatively applying a dual-verification model combining mass supervision with data analysis, "Four Winds" problems and their "invisible and mutated" (隐形变异) forms ^[9] are effectively identified. At the technical level, big data early warning models are relied upon to improve the timeliness of problem discovery; at the organizational level, configuration efficiency is enhanced by breaking down departmental barriers and coordinating supervisory resources. Governance practice shows two directions of deepening: in problem investigation, extending from curbing overt violations to digging deep into invisible mutations; in efficiency enhancement, shifting from focusing on formalistic burden reduction to pursuing substantive optimization. The resulting closed loop of "precisely discovering problems, scientifically analyzing and judging, implementing targeted governance, and objectively evaluating results" not only effectively solves chronic work style maladies but also builds an operational model characterized by rapid response, timely correction, and continuous optimization, providing a powerful tool for the dynamic maintenance and efficiency improvement of the long-term mechanism for work style construction.

2. Systemic deviation correction. In response to the stubbornness, mutability, and recurrence of work style problems, the long-term mechanism for work style construction has gradually formed a systemic correction logic driven by the "dual wheels" of institutional constraints and capacity building. At the institutional level, a linked control mechanism centered on power lists, responsibility lists, and negative lists has been established. By clarifying behavioral boundaries, consolidating primary responsibility, and drawing disciplinary red lines, a comprehensive and traceable institutional constraint system is constructed. At the capacity-building level, a three-dimensional empowerment mechanism combining supervision, education, and feedback is systematically built. The implementation of regulations is treated as an important political yardstick for testing the "Two Upholds," and an educational model combining warning analysis with discussion and practice is promoted, facilitating the timely elevation of effective grassroots practices into institutional achievements. This governance path, which combines rigidity with flexibility and addresses both symptoms and root causes, resolutely maintains disciplinary rigidity while effectively stimulating the intrinsic motivation of Party members and officials to abide by rules and discipline. By both correcting deviations and enhancing capacity, it provides sustained systemic protection for the healthy operation of the long-term mechanism for work style construction.

IV. Systemic Innovation: Perfection and Deepening of the Intra-Party Supervision System

The effective operation of the long-term mechanism for work style construction is inseparable from the continuous deterrence and institutional guarantee provided by a powerful supervision system. The intra-Party supervision system, guided by the principle that "every violation must be investigated," is dedicated to building a comprehensive, permanent, and long-term constraint mechanism. In this process, the spirit of the Eight-Point Regulations has played a pivotal role; it not only provided a specific supervisory yardstick but also led the deepening of the entire supervision system through innovations in concepts and methods, thereby solidifying the long-term foundation for work style construction.

(1) Innovation of Supervision Mechanisms Led by the Spirit of the Central Eight-Point Regulations

The deep practice of the spirit of the Eight-Point Regulations has systematically led the intra-Party supervision system to achieve synergistic innovation in scope, standards, and mechanisms, providing a solid supervisory guarantee for the normalization and perpetuation of work style construction. In terms of supervisory scope, it has achieved an expansion from specific norms to macro-level leadership. The Regulations of the Communist Party of China on Intra-Party Supervision, revised in 2016, for the first time included the implementation of the spirit of the Eight-Point Regulations within the scope of supervision. Its connotation has gradually extended from the initial eight specific requirements to all areas of work style construction, and it has been deeply integrated into key links of national governance such as grassroots governance and people's livelihood protection. The Regulations on the Implementation of the Primary Responsibility for Comprehensively and Strictly Governing the Party by Party Committees (Party Leadership Groups) in 2020 further listed it as a key assessment indicator, embedding it into the supervision framework of major national strategies such as poverty alleviation and the crackdown on organized crime (扫黑除恶), reflecting the continuous expansion of supervisory vision and the deepening of governance. In terms of supervisory standards, a composite standard system has been constructed characterized by "drawing red lines with prohibitive provisions, setting scales with quantitative indicators, and ensuring flexibility with exception assessments." Explicit numerical bans are set for daily matters such as dining at public expense and office space, while an "item-by-item" evaluation mechanism is established for complex situations, achieving the organic unity of rigid constraints and operational flexibility. In terms of supervisory mechanisms, a multi-dimensional supervision system has been constructed focusing on the "key few" (关键少数) ^[10] among leading cadres. It comprehensively spans the Party's Six Disciplines ^[11], systematically integrates various means such as reporting on personal matters, economic responsibility audits, and democratic life meetings, and connects key links such as pre-appointment review, mid-term tracking, and exit audits, significantly enhancing the precision and penetration of supervision.

Intra-Party supervision in the New Era exhibits distinct synergistic characteristics. At the institutional level, it relies on the Regulations on Disciplinary Actions and the Regulations on Intra-Party Supervision to build a mechanism for the simultaneous investigation of work style issues and corruption (风腐同查). At the implementation level, it deeply integrates regular supervision with big data technology. At the technical level, it achieves a transformation from passive response to active prevention through a unified national supervision information platform. Ultimately, a new five-dimensional synergistic supervision pattern—spanning institutional positioning, standard systems, focus on targets, mechanism innovation, and technical support—has been formed. The formation of this pattern marks the full embedding of the supervision system into the long-term mechanism of work style construction, providing a systematic, closed-loop institutional guarantee for its effective operation.

(2) Institutional Expansion and Systemic Synergy of Intra-Party Supervision

With the spirit of the central Eight-Point Regulations serving as its value core, the mechanism of intra-Party supervision has gradually formed a systematic operational logic covering the entire process of problem discovery, deviation correction, and institutional refinement. This innovation has not only expanded the practical connotations of intra-Party supervision but has also provided an important conceptual and methodological reference for the reform of the national supervision system, further enhancing the external synergy and institutional cohesion of the long-term mechanism for conduct construction. Its innovative value is primarily reflected in three dimensions: At the conceptual level, the principle of comprehensive supervisory coverage inherent in the spirit of the Eight-Point Regulations is highly consistent with the goal of the national supervision system reform to "achieve full supervisory coverage over all public officials exercising public power." The successful practice of the former created powerful momentum and accumulated valuable experience for the latter, collectively fortifying the foundation of the supervision system with Chinese characteristics. At the mechanism level, the collaborative governance model of "simultaneous investigation of conduct and corruption" ^[12] provides a practical paradigm for national supervision work. Discipline inspection and supervision organs ^[13] have constructed a bidirectional tracing mechanism for conduct issues and corruption issues during discipline and law enforcement, forming a supervisory pattern characterized by mutual verification and collaborative governance. At the technical level, innovative means such as big-data supervision have driven the transformation of supervision toward intelligence and precision. By integrating multi-source data to build risk-warning models, they have achieved full-process traceability and precise supervision in key areas.

Furthermore, an institutional mutual-construction relationship is gradually forming between intra-Party supervision and national supervision. Mature practices of intra-Party supervision are transformed into national laws through statutory procedures; meanwhile, achievements in the reform of the national supervision system, such as evidentiary standards and procedural norms, also provide references for the optimization of intra-Party supervision. This relationship of bidirectional embedding and collaborative evolution integrates supervisory resources and improves supervisory efficacy through the "integration of discipline and law, and the linkage of laws." ^[14] This not only promotes the maturation and finalized shaping of the Party and state supervision systems, but also constructs an institutional environment of internal-external connection and benign interaction for the long-term mechanism of conduct construction, strengthening the capacity for systematic governance of conduct issues.

Through systematic institutional evolution and practical innovation, the long-term mechanism for the Party's conduct construction has gradually matured and become finalized, constructing an organic whole that encompasses regulatory creation, value internalization, institutional execution, and supervisory protection. This mechanism has driven conduct construction to achieve a historical transformation from focusing on treating symptoms to systematic root-cause treatment, and from single-item breakthroughs to holistic advancement. It profoundly manifests our Party's historical consciousness and political wisdom in advancing self-revolution in the New Era, contributing a "Chinese solution" ^[15] of theoretical innovation and practical significance for preserving the Party's advanced nature and purity. The Fourth Plenary Session of its 20th Central Committee ^[16] emphasized "upholding the Party's overall leadership"; the spirit of the central Eight-Point Regulations is precisely the concrete manifestation and institutional carrier of this fundamental principle in the field of conduct construction. Looking toward the new journey of the "15th Five-Year Plan," ^[17] the long-term mechanism of conduct construction, with the spirit of the central Eight-Point Regulations at its core, will surely provide more solid institutional support and a continuous stream of practical momentum for perfecting the system of Party leadership institutions, guaranteeing the implementation of major national strategies, deepening the comprehensive and strict governance of the Party, and safeguarding the steady and long-term progress of Chinese-path modernization.

About the Author: Wang Jianqin is a Distinguished Professor at Inner Mongolia University and a Professor at the China University of Political Science and Law. Source: Theoretical Horizon (Lǐlùn Shìyě), Issue 11, 2025. Editor: Huihui