Disappearing a bookseller with no trial and imprisoning complainers is not the rule of law.

An autocratic government is inherently antithetical to the Rule of Law. They are mutually exclusive.

Please expand on what this "Rule of Law" proper noun you're referring to is. I am quite curious how it is a thing that democratic societies can have while tyrannies must lack it and I reeeeally suspect that your distinction will fall under a No True Scotsman fallacy.

The difference is simply "rule of law" and "rule by law". Rule of Law means the law rules, and all laws apply to all people, without considering their wealth or connections or anything at all, other than their deeds and the law. Rule by Law means people use laws (and often selective enforcement of it) to rule over others.

e.g.

> The Rule of Law is an intrinsically abstract idea, which finds itself grounded in philosophical and moral conceptions. One of its most basic tenants is that all people, whether they be at the lowest level of citizenship or the highest, being the sovereign or government ruler, are all equal under the law itself. This means that no one is above the law, and any law that is broken should be equally punished across the board, regardless of status in society or local community.

> It is also associated with the concept of natural law, which basically claims that because we all belong to the larger human community, everyone must be treated under the same laws and possess the same rights.

vs.

> In contrast, Rule by Law is a concept that sees the governing authority as somehow being above the law, and has the power to create and execute law where they find it to be convenient, despite the effect it has on larger freedoms that people enjoy. To expand on this idea, rule by law is a method that governments and people in power use to shape the behavior of people, and in terms of governing a country, mass groups of people. This usually has the end goal of psychologically or forcefully persuading people to agree with policy decisions they otherwise would not agree with.

(from https://www.vannormanlaw.com/rule-law-vs-rule-law/ )

It is more about having a divided government. Many democratic societies have a separation between at least two, sometimes three branches of government, allowing for one to check the other. In the USA’s case, the judicial branch interprets law.

China lacks such separation, the judicial branch cannot check the power of the party/official class, they cannot interpret law and they definitely cannot enforce what the official don’t want to enforce (see China’s constitution that with freedom of speech, assembly, and so on...). By definition, this concentration of power is authoritarian, so these things go hand in hand.

But within the US we observed that the judiciary was hijacked by the congress with their failure to appoint a justice in a timely manner and lately the congress has been acquiescing to the executive - going against prior initiatives and momentum to stay in good political graces owing to the intense cult of personality over the executive.

I think from country to country the amount by which different branches check one another will vary - and I agree that stronger checks leads to a stronger government - I just disagree that this is a black and white issue rather than a grey one.

That is just another part of the check. The executive nominates judges, legislative approves judges, judges then interpret. Ya, it isn’t perfect, but you still have a few judges (Kennedy before and Roberts now) who are independent enough to sometimes do the right thing against their ideology (judges are mostly independent after being approved, so influence is limited).

So I generally agree with what you're saying, but I don't know if that makes enough of a difference, the US has more checks and balances than China but China does have checks and balances[1] and the US's isn't perfect - is the Rule of Law something that switches from off to on somewhere between those two points?

I really don't disagree that China's government is crap, but things aren't black and white, all peoples everywhere are struggling for a good balanced government and pushing back against oppressive governments - that said in China, while people are disappeared, there is a general rule of law for the general populace... Normal folks can get by with a decent orderly life, it's constrained and they do lack a lot of freedoms Americans enjoy, but I would draw a stark contrast between living there and Cambodia, Pakistan, Venezuela or Russia - those are countries where law doesn't rule and personal safety is no guarantee.

As an aside - oh look at this neat thingy[2] a rule of law ranking - I had no idea it existed.

1. In theory, at least, the communist party appoints the chairman - a number of seats within this representative board are freely elected, though some are essentially super delegates that get a guaranteed seat. More on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Communist_...

2. https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/document...

None of China’s checks and balances proceed past theory. In reality, they just have a hierarchy and and as long as the top leader says something is ok, it is. Under Hu it was a bit better, since Hu was so weak, but in that case the result of the hierarchy breaking down was an increase in corruption.

Yes, China has laws and those laws are often enforced, you won’t get away with murder probably. But if an official feels like they want to intervene, all bets are off; the only recourse for justice are the whims of an even greater official.

And I’m not saying that China is a dangerous place to live: as long as you don’t go against the party’s (or a family member of such) interest, you aren’t going to be effected by a lack of rule of law (though you still have to be careful of rule by law). The pollution will kill you before anything bad happens to you in china’s legal system.

Are your interactions with the ruling sovereign within a given jurisdiction arbitrary or governed by Law?

Are the actions taken by the enforcement arm of the sovereign power fairly predictable according to the code of law they publish, or is there are there numerous uncodified “rules” you must also abide by?

Are political enemies executed or punished during regime changes, or are regime changes regular, peaceful and governed by law? Are the families of political enemies also punished?

Does the legislative power pass ex post facto laws or Bills of Attainder? Are property rights respected? Do laws pass through a formal process or at whim? Are Courts of Law and Equity independent?