Compare how a one-party state and a constitutional democracy each make the powerful accountable, with reference to recent developments in China.

Accountability means that people who hold power must answer for how they use it. China's Fifth Plenum (October 2026) confirmed the expulsion of 33 Central Committee members, including 16 PLA Generals [1]. It shows a model in which the Party polices itself. In democracies like India, the powerful answer to institutions outside the ruling party.

One-party state: China

• Internal and top-down: discipline runs through Party organs such as the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI). These answer to the Party leadership, not to voters or independent courts.
• Wide reach: about 9% of the Central Committee has been expelled, and only 279 of 376 members attended the plenum [1].
• Called self-governance: the plenum's resolution on "Full and Rigorous Party Self-Governance" praised the Central Committee "with Xi Jinping at its core" [1].
• Limits:
• Proceedings are opaque, so genuine anti-graft action and the removal of rivals look the same from outside.
• The leader at the "core" is beyond scrutiny.
• Succession before the 2027 Congress remains unclear [1].

Constitutional democracy: India

• Political: the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (Art. 75(3)). Elections are run by an independent Election Commission (Art. 324) [2].
• Judicial: writs under Arts. 32 and 226 let citizens challenge executive action [2].
• Financial: the CAG audits government accounts (Art. 148) [2].
• Statutory anti-graft bodies:
• The Lokpal can inquire into allegations against public functionaries, including the Prime Minister, subject to safeguards [3].

• The CVC inquires into offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act [4].

• Limits: slow investigations, judicial pendency and political pressure on agencies can weaken deterrence.

Comparative view

Basis	One-party state (China)	Constitutional democracy (India)
Who checks power	Party organs	Voters, Parliament, courts, press
Transparency	Closed proceedings	Public charges, open trials
Reach to top leader	None in practice	PM within Lokpal's scope
Main risk	Discipline used against rivals	Delay and weak enforcement

China's purge shows that a one-party state can act quickly and widely against corruption. Without external checks, though, it cannot show that its actions are fair. Democratic accountability is slower but more credible because it is spread across many institutions. India should strengthen its own model by keeping the Lokpal and CVC well staffed and adequately funded, and by speeding up trials. This would honour the constitutional values of the rule of law and SDG 16 (accountable institutions), and confirm that external checks on power are more legitimate than self-policing.