The inconsistency in the logic of thinking about the study of politics between us has led us to understand some political terms in completely different ways. I can only try to explain some of your questions and points in a Chinese perspective.
Bound to be, and our respective explanations of what seems strange to people rooted in other points of view will throw light both on those things being explained, and on us, who seek to explain.
China has a complete and rigorous historical record and living habits throughout its thousands of years of history. They have shaped the traditions of the Chinese people today. These traditions take precedence over the law. Or rather, many Chinese laws are based on these traditions. When the state needs to make laws that go against these traditions, it must first do a lot of emotional work to get the general public to accept the new rules from the inside. Otherwise, the Chinese will not pay any attention to these laws and will still continue to live according to these traditions.
Unlike the situation in many countries, the influence of these traditions on the Chinese is far greater than the influence of traditions on the people in other countries, and far greater than the influence of religion on the population.
Ordinary Chinese people know that there are many laws in China, but they do not care about the terms of these laws. This is because they know that what the laws stipulate is basically the same as the traditions they have in their daily lives. Even when the Mongols, Manchus, and Japanese occupied Han Chinese areas throughout history, they had to respect those traditions when they made laws in those places. For example, all Chinese know the traditional concept of ‘killing a man pays for his life’, but few know what the law says about it. It is only when we come across such things that we look up the legal provisions.
To be honest, those few, very few, among Indians who have some knowledge and information about China and the Han Chinese people have gathered what you have stated. Perhaps not with such accuracy, not with such width, but near enough for the rest of us Indians to get the impression.
It needs to be said, however, that you are speaking at a deep, conceptual level. Many posts tend to brush that aside, and straightaway point to transactional matters - the Sino-Indian War of 1962, that was never a war at all - to define the relationship between the two countries.
Of course, society is developing. Many legal provisions are also gradually becoming new traditions for Chinese people.
This is interesting. Interesting, because we get an opportunity to see what influences such development, what new thoughts, concepts and practices reach home to the people at large.
As for CCP, he respects these traditions and endeavours to lead the people together towards the ideal society of the Chinese. So, it is the Chinese people who choose CCP as their leader, not CCP who is fooling the Chinese people. Compared to traditional Chinese culture, the influence of CCP is negligible. Don't forget, these CCP members, they are firstly Chinese before they are CCP members. If they want to challenge these traditions, they must first challenge themselves.
Your points are noted. The impression I, personally, have is not identical to what I read from your post.
For instance, the influence of Marxism, particularly of the developed concept of that ideology that stemmed from Stalin, and followed Lenin, that was interpreted in a particular manner, not necessarily a China-specific manner, by Mao Zedong, cannot be brushed aside. It has had a lasting imprint on China as a state, although it is also clear that the efforts of Mao to destroy the respect for traditions and the past, notably during the Cultural Revolution, did not work.
It also does not seem convincing to be told that the Chinese people chose the CCP. There is a lot more to it than that, and the struggle between the Communists and the Nationalists, once more, cannot be brushed aside. While it conveys a romantic and idealised notion of recent historical events, it may not be very accurate. Ignoring the role of Deng Xiaoping in reversing some of the extreme policies of Mao is also very controversial.
The present situation may support your depiction of a party that acknowledges the unvoiced opinion of the Chinese people, although it is difficult to imagine a situation where this opinion is fished out of social media, in the absence of any mechanism by which it can be gauged by the politicians/party member.
Therefore, if we try to interpret and study the Chinese Constitution, we might as well study these Chinese traditions. Ordinary Chinese don't care about what's inside the Constitution at all.
If you are interested, try to study Chinese history. China has used various state systems of today's world in its developmental history. Federalism, Constitutional Monarchy, Parliamentary System ............. The only difference is that they are called differently.
Regarding democracy and centralisation: as I said earlier, it's a dynamic property rather than a static one. To describe it more directly: today's India is a centralised state. Past or future, constitution or performance, it doesn't matter. It does now. If you compare carefully, you will see: India and China have different ways of describing and manifesting the relevant provisions of the institutions of power, but the core is the same. How the Supreme Leader is created, the scope of his powers, and the provisions for his term of office ............. The most controversial: India calls it arising from different political parties; China calls it arising from different factions. But their essence is the same, only the description is different, and they are also produced by different political groups.
So I don't think there is any substantial difference between India and China in terms of democracy and centralisation of power.
A thought-provoking post. I had replied in detail and at length, but my work was wiped out by an unexpected power outage that outlasted my UPS. Perhaps later, if my household chores permit (it is already midnight, so not much more time left).
Thank you for the inputs. Whether I agree or disagree is another matter, and of course, those knowledgeable in these matters will no doubt have a lot to say.
