China and Chinese on many levels certainly seem fond of having a chance to implement this western idea.

Notably I would argue that rule of law is about having well established laws and mechanisms to apply them equally.

It takes little position in what the content of law should be. Even if the laws are very bad, even unfair, if those laws are strictly applied, it would still be rule of law.

By arguing that such broad interpretation of rule of law is not the only possible good way of doing things, I don't know what system would be better?

It is about having clear laws, so that people know what is allowed and what is not (both themselves and others), and to what degree.

The opposite would be system where you do not know what is allowed or to what degree. I fail to see how any such system would be better.

China's problem usually has been outside interference (of various interest groups) in judicial system, which is something they are trying address at least in policy speeches.

Even if China has clear laws about something already in the past, courts were not free to implement the law.

Would you argue that in some cases such external interference in strict implementation of laws would be preferred? Of course if the laws are bad, it may be called for, but first solution should be to rewrite the laws.

alternative is arbitrary judgment by a council of elders. ok if they are wise and not corrupt. works in many nations, but has problems, like rule of law does e.g. chicago, baltimore, policing. e.g. corrupt judges. institutionalised racism, etc.

I would argue that such "arbitrary judgment by a council of elders" is a predecessor to rule of law, not an alternative.

After such rule of elders has matured long enough, the practices of it will become institutionalized and written (where writing exists) into a formal law, which can be studied, understood, and applied, without needing the council of elders in most cases.

Even in western judicial systems, there is still the council of elders in most countries. In USA it is the supreme court, and other countries have similar.

Your examples of where rule of law supposedly has failed in west, do not speak for inherent failing property of rule of law in my opinion, but failed implementation of rule of law.

becaoz the rule of law is implimented arbitrarily.

OK Perhaps I should adapt the question slightly.
Is the Law in China now being applied more evenly, equally? fairly? across the population.
OK I doubt a judge or party member would get the same type of justice as a road worker or bus driver with no guanxi (for example) but is it better? fairer? more equal? in application than say 10 years ago?
I'd argue it is and the Chinese people feel better about this too.

the biggest equaliser was the internet and phones with cameras as these created transparency. the 'human flesh search engine' went after politicos and uncovered dirt. websites were started to report instances of corrupt. certain train crash and car crash coverage on the internet raised anger. all this threatened party control. this was a driver for tigers and flies anti corruption initiative. it also drove the gfw and wu mao army to new levels of activity

I don't think the little man is more satisfied with anything. Not much has changed. Except as Dazzer pointed out, now there is more access to news and media.

But little Mr. Wang couldn't care less which rich and powerful leader is put behind bars. If he needs legal advice. He still can't pay for it and still has no chance of winning.

For us foreigners, that means. In a chinese court of law, you will never and can never win. I have been in one (remotely), and two friends,... and it was a joke.
Chinese court has nothing to do with justice. It's a display of guanxi and reddies.

And as a previous poster stated. Law is theonly way to make a country work. Laws and regulations have been established in every one of them. So Alien, I don't know what you are promoting, anarchy, perhaps. But even anarch follows rules.

So Alien? Freudian slip? Android autocorrect? Or was some comment deleted? He actually hasn't commented here, which is surprising.

'western idea' = exasperating crap

An idea is an idea. It doesn't matter who came up with it first - though it could well have been an ancient Chinese king / emperor for all we know. But in any case, does that mean it can't shouldn't apply outside the 'west'? In that case, can Chinese people not eat potatoes or peppers? Can Westerners not eat rice?