Because Jiang and Hu were more administrators than leaders in the true sense of the word. They also presided over a period in recent Chinese history when China was in a weak position due to the worldwide setbacks of socialism and when it had to focus more on economic growth, pretending to the west like it was on a path to liberalization in order to avoid suffering the fate of the USSR. It was a time to “lay low” so to speak and as a result there was a certain growth of corruption that came along with that opening up.

That being said it’s not like there weren’t significant milestones during their tenures at all; Jiang oversaw the re-integration of Hong Kong while Hu started laying the groundwork for what would eventually become Xi’s signature project, the Belt and Road Initiative.

They can be compared more to Hua Guofeng who briefly led the party between Mao’s death and Deng’s rise to leadership, in the sense that they were largely just holding a steady course during a potentially difficult transition period.

At least this is my impression as an outsider learning about China and the CPC. I may be wrong.

Deng’s “lay low and develop the productive forces” strategy continued after him. It was extremely effective as evidenced by where China is now, but it was a long game and Jiang and Hu deserve credit for carrying it through, but it did require laying low. That’s reduced their footprint in Western media coverage.

Look for Jiang’s interview on the US TV show 60 Minutes. He quite literally took one for the team by kissing the ring of the capitalists. He had to patiently endure those fork-tongued fucks twist every word, every statement, and just patiently try to correct the record and keep smiling.

There’s footage of him going off at a Hong Kong reporter for trying to pull the same shit saying that an endorsement of Tung Chee-Hwa (first Chief Executive of Hong Kong after the handover) was an ‘imperial appointment’. Unfortunately the only copy I can find is from a China hate channel here.

Jiang is the polar opposite of everything the West’s portrayal of every single one of China’s leaders (as some kind of irrational, power hungry, thin-skinned egomaniac) makes him out to be.

So anyway, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao were key players in the story of the PRC, but they weren’t the ‘playmakers’ that Mao, Deng and Xi have been. So they get overlooked in anglo coverage. (Like with most countries I guess. For example unless Bojo gets brought back, the next UK PM is going to be someone nobody outside the UK knows anything about even though he’s already been instrumental in fucking the country up as Boris’ Chancellor).

Also kind of related but it’s important to remember that these leaders are the heads of the politburo standing committee, and not the unfettered dictators that Western media constantly tells you they are. There are a lot of key figures that are completely invisible to the Anglosphere. Li Keqiang, for example, is leaving with the current changes but he’s risen through the party in the same ‘generation’ as Xi, and he’s been instrumental in the government throughout Xi’s tenure so far.

It’s the same with most countries in my view. Simply via circumstance and contemporary conditions some national leaders are more or less forgotten or ignored by history, especially histories which focus on pivotal events.

just want to add that hu and jiang are seen as continuations of deng’s legacy not just because they continued much the same process of developing the productive forces, but that both were hand-picked by deng as well

Has the PRC had more presidents then Mao, Deng, and Xi?

Typically, we only truly care about leaders that make policy changes instead of maintaining the current policies. In this way, Hua Guofeng is like Martin Van Burek. No one fucking remembers him lmao