In essence, what you convey is that a unified centralised political force has always been the long term Chinese political edifice.
China's transition to a modern political entity (from Qing dynasty and the dynasty concept at large) had to follow that as well.
Thus the KMT and CCP situation was untenable (in fact I have read many papers analysing this), and inevitably deteriorated as it did after Sun Yat Sen, as there could only be one political authority given precedence in China, the heavenly mandate etc. One had to prevail basically as the sense longer term in China, to conform to Chinese history and sentiment. Having two or more means competing interpretation of what the nationstate even was to be.
Anyway my feeling is I understand where you are coming from, as no proper constitution was made to handle another (multi party way). China basically got stuck with set of circumstances and one legal party route was really only conclusion given this backdrop and no constitution to wield institutional power above political party, as the party is what manifested on the ground for the people and their struggles. Essentially the concept of a constitution underneath the (winning) political party, so its sole legality and execution of duties to be uncontested. Yes you get factions (and anti-factional pushes at various times from the centre like say Lenin did in USSR), but thats very different in end to multi-parties that are underneath a larger constitution that allows all of them significant latitude from each other. There are key institutional differences as well.
There is evidence both ways regarding other (East Asian) related arcs if we study the nature of political monopoly formation within Japan, Korea and of course Taiwan (ROC)...regarding their constitutions and tendencies for political expression/formation within it and the evolution of this and why. ROC is especially interesting as its KMT residual w.r.t China's history in 20th century.
One such look at ROC KMT arc I have in my archive, as to KMT own monopolisation under anti-communist Emergency...what lingers here:
Another one I have in my archive, as to general context:
Not saying I agree with any analysis 100%, but they contain elements to the opinions I've formed on the subject so far.
The PRC of course outsizes them considerably and only has partial intersection of comparison with each one. But the way CCP has charted through 20th century is not some thematic aberration all things considered, its a creature of its context and history to large degree. That I agree with you overall. The KMT after all had a major bifurcation to study regarding the war with Japan, that sullied it for the long term, so the CCP arc afterwards is inevitable to some degree just by that.
My differences may arise mostly with regards to various details regarding (especially post 1949) Mao especially, when authority was settled, and peace has prevailed for large part. But that is longer topic and only has partial relevancy to formation and nature of India-China relations in 20th century. Relations with India were certainly not wholly contingent on CCP or KMT as the full national authority. Any set of good and bad here could have happened with each.
We're way off on some of these concepts. As I mentioned earlier, Eastern politics and Western politics are not the same thing in terms of the understanding and application of political parties and constitutions.
If we summarize history, we will find such a pattern:
The top-level political structure of China in all periods is a triangular structure. There is a spiritual leader at the top, and some substantive officials below.
The spiritual leader is the symbol of spiritual cohesion of the whole group, and he needs to be recognized by the whole group. It has nothing to do with the way he gets the seat. If he fails to gain the recognition of the majority, he will be overthrown by the others. Therefore, how to gain majority recognition is the most important thing for him. He did not deal with any practical matters directly, he was only responsible for regulating the balance between these practical officials below him.
Substantive officials are the officials who control and execute all specific affairs of the state. They are the ones who are actually in power. But behind them are different political groups. These different political groups have always been in a state of mutual supervision and constraint. In Chinese history, this is called “party struggle”.
When the spiritual leaders are able to balance the different political groups well, China will enter a period of prosperity.
When the spiritual leaders are unable to balance the different political groups, China will begin to decline. When a political group grows too strong, The leader of this political group will become the new “spiritual leader” of the country. The political group will re-divide into different political groups, thus forming a new triangular structure.When the spiritual leader completely loses control over the various political groups, causing them to enter into a disorderly struggle, China will experience a foreign invasion or civil uprising.
The mechanism of supervision and control between these political groups is essentially a “democratic” mechanism. This structure is exactly the same as the structure of the Western societies of the past and the modern Western societies. There are just a few differences in how they are called. In the modern Western socio-political structure, the “spiritual leader”, who acts as a political balancing act, usually does things behind the scenes. Of course, there are also some “spiritual leaders” who are on the stage.
In the modern Western socio-political structure:
If there is no “spiritual leader” and the political groups are evenly matched, the country is in chaos. There are many examples of such countries in the world today. When the various factions in a country do not agree, there is a constant struggle within the country. The extent and manner of the internal struggle depends on the specifics of the country, such as its economic strength and cultural education. When one political group grows strong enough to suppress the others, it becomes the new “spiritual leader”. The country then begins to enter a period of stabilization.
If this “triangular structure” of a country is solid, the country will develop well.
For the enemies of the country, destroying the “triangular structure” of the other side is one of the best means. For example: to support a certain force through money and weapons; to influence a certain force through the dissemination of tendentious public opinion. ................ These phenomena are very common in international diplomacy.
The struggle between CCP and KMT during the ROC period (before the PRC) fits this pattern perfectly. When Mr. Sun was still alive, these two political forces did not fight. Mr. Sun was the “spiritual leader” at that time. When Mr. Sun died, the balance was upset and the struggle began.
After CCP defeated KMT and PRC replaced ROC, Mr. Mao became the new “spiritual leader” and the struggle between the various factions within CCP began. When Mr. Mao was still able to balance these struggles, they did not affect the lives of ordinary people, they were confined to a certain area, and the country was not greatly affected by these struggles. When Mr. Mao was unable (for medical reasons) to balance these struggles, they were expanded, culminating in the Cultural Revolution and the “Gang of Four” movement. In the end, the political group represented by Marshal Ye Jianying was victorious, Deng Xiaoping became the new “spiritual leader” and the country began to develop smoothly. However, in the later years of Deng Xiaoping, for the same reason, this kind of struggle arose again in China, resulting in the June Fourth Movement. These phenomena have been analyzed and summarized by modern Chinese politicians, who have made adjustments to the system in an attempt to end this vicious circle. Of course, these political reforms are exploratory and we have to take some risks.
All in all, I think that Western-style democracy and Eastern-style democracy are, in essence, completely the same, they are just differently formulated.
