To those sceptical about the Communist Party of China's willingness to push ahead with political reforms, the weekend's events represent a firm rebuttal.

In three separate documents, the CPC central authorities announced an ambitious program to officially install a term-of-office system, an official exchange mechanism, and an avoidance scheme in CPC and government offices.

From this, it is evident that the CPC's promise of self-regulation is no shadow-boxing exercise.

The document on adopting limits on terms of office for national and local CPC and government chiefs, in particular, presents something revolutionary, even though it is no longer news.

Even before the CPC's 16th National Congress in 2002, when the proposal was first written into the Party's official agenda, pilot projects had already begun in the provinces under direct guidance from Beijing. Many provinces have been involved as the scope of the experiments expanded.

Considering the CPC's consistent prudence on systematic modifications, its current readiness to introduce such a mechanism reveals not only the understanding that opportunities are finally ripe, but also its confidence in exploiting a Western design for its own benefit.

This is a welcome sign. While resolutely opposing the creation of a straight facsimile of a Western model, the CPC is open to everything conducive to its own ideal of democracy. A political party committed to good governance in a nation of more than 1 billion cannot afford to subject itself to xenophobia or ideological biases.

The concept of office terms is revolutionary because it plugs a conspicuous loophole in China's political architecture.

Since Deng Xiaoping took the lead in stepping down from State leadership, life-long tenure for senior leaders has become a thing of the past on the Chinese political stage. Following his example, Jiang Zemin resigned from active political life and handed the baton to Hu Jintao's generation.

The recent successions in CPC and State leaderships have demonstrated a de facto pattern of limiting terms. But there was never a written clause stipulating a CPC or State leader should leave after serving his or her term of office.

A compulsory term-of-office system is welcome first because it guarantees predictability, which is essential for orderly transfer of power. People will know better what to expect of appointed and elected officials.

That the three documents concerning organizational work have come out in a package is a sign that the CPC central authorities are more aware of the significance of system management. The simultaneous avoidance and exchange systems may be substantial antidotes against nepotism, departmentalism, and localism in CPC and government offices.

They will work more efficiently in combination with a well-thought-out process that ensures only the best possible candidates are allowed into CPC and government offices.

(China Daily August 8, 2006)