• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Concluding Summary After the five lectures, I wish to share some simple thoughts with you. Concerning traditional politics over the past 2000 years from the Qin (221–206 BC) to the Qing Dynasty (1616–1912), at the very least we should no longer regard it as mere autocracy. To be fair, there were many problems as well as much valuable expe- rience in politics over the past 2000 years. Politics has gone through continuous revisions in the past and will continue to do so in the future. We can summarize several main trends in traditional politics over the past 2000 years. Here, I would like to reiterate some bad trends only, leaving aside the good ones for the moment. First, the central government tended to become more and more centralized. This was good on one hand, because a country should have a stable central government. With the progress of politics, it is natural for political power to be centralized. It is the same with any country. Political power was divided (among feudal states) during the feudal era and gradually became centralized (as the country became unified). Even from the Han (206 BC–AD 220) to the Tang (AD 618–907) dynasties, there was a tendency for power to become over-centralized. In the Song (960–1279), Ming (1368–1644), and Qing dynasties, too much centralization of power led to the deterioration of local politics. Centralization of power still remains a major issue in the present. Dr. Sun Yat-sen (1866–1925) also noticed the issue. He raised the question of how to build up new county politics and how to reform the old province-based system. His thinking really deserves our careful study. We should be aware of the long tendency towards centralization of power in history, along with deterioration of local politics. With local officials losing their status and local politics deteriorating by the day, the entirety of politics was controlled by the central government. That was not a good phenomenon. Given the fact that the Republic of China (1912–1949) was unable to achieve successful and stable uni- fication in the past decades, politically it is absolutely correct to strive for national unity. How to achieve and maintain national unity without over-centralization of power while making an effort to improve local politics? This is the first and fore- most issue we should tackle. © Foreign Language Teaching and Research Publishing Co., Ltd 2019 137 M. Ch’ien, Merits and Demerits of Political Systems in Dynastic China, China Academic Library, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58514-6 138 Concluding Summary Secondly, Chinese traditional politics encouraged different social classes to become equal. Traditional politics always restrained capitalism, from the Han through to the Qing Dynasty. All dynasties restrained privileges to a particular group of people, except for the Yuan (1206–1368) and the Qing, which were run under tribal politics. The feudal society was overthrown long ago. There were large families of prestigious social status in the Eastern Han Dynasty (AD 25–220) onward, but such families had already declined by the late Tang Dynasty. Ever since the Song Dynasty, the Chinese society remained equal: feudal aristocrat titles, such as dukes and earls, had long been abolished; official positions were not inheritable; political power was open to anyone able to pass relevant examinations. Such an equal society had a problem, too. The problem was lack of any social force. Two people noticed this. One was Gu Yanwu (1613–1682, also known as Gu Tinglin), who lived in the late Ming and early Qing Dynasty. Gu wanted to stage a revolution to drive out the Manchu rulers, but could not find any social force. In Shanxi Province, he found a Pei Village, where all the villagers were originally from the same family. The forefathers of the Pei family had been very influential in the Tang Dynasty, several of them holding the position of Prime Minister. Hundreds, even thousands, of Pei families still lived together by the end of the Ming Dynasty. This Pei Village reminded Gu that only a feudal society had social forces. When an enemy invaded the country, even when the central government collapsed, there were social forces capable of resisting. However, Gu’s idea of a feudal society was not one with a privileged class, but one in which political power was divided. In his ideal society, the central government would delegate power to local governments so that the latter could sustain political power if the former fell. This was Gu’s painstaking thought. The other person was Dr. Sun Yat-sen. To prepare for revolution, Dr. Sun went abroad but only won the support of some intellectuals. Knowing that these intel- lectuals did not represent sufficient strength, he made use of the strength of the numerous gangs and secret societies in Chinese society. Their force as organiza- tions was not the same as that of the feudal society or the capitalist society. They represented a usable force because they were organized. In the West, a large factory may have thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of workers. When they are incited by a political party to go on strike, they can exert huge influence. These workers represent a force because they are organized. In modern Chinese society, no such forces existed. Everyone was equal and unrelated. Only students could be called on to boycott classes, to take to the street, and could appear in hundreds or thousands. That was the only force. When Western society transformed from feudal to capi- talist, the large landlords became large factory owners. They had control over the masses, who could be organized into a social force. Chinese traditional politics always restrained capitalism; when the feudal class was overthrown, there was no capitalist force and everyone became equal in society. In a sense, the Chinese were the most equal and the freest. Dr. Sun saw this most clearly. Chinese society was too equal, too free to have any social force. Now that all were equal, the key question was who should administrate politics? If the government was high above this equal society, who should rise to become Concluding Summary 139 officials, to administer power? Chinese traditional politics prescribed that only scholars could enter politics, scholars who had passed the selection examinations. Most scholars came from the countryside. Even when they became officials, their children might not become officials. Children from other families, probably poor ones, could become officials by dint of studying hard. This was a good practice. However, as the number of scholars grew, the number of officials also increased. Since political power was open to all, the intelligent and the talented all aspired to official position, and craftsmen and merchants were looked down on in consequence. It was different in the West, where politics was not open to the common people. Even feudal aristocrats were not entitled to official posts. Therefore, the intelligent and the talented entered industries and commerce. Once they built up their strength they began demanding political power. This was how Western society became what it is. In China, scholars were encouraged to excel in learning in order to become officials. The intelligent all devoted themselves to learning so as to become officials, which resulted in their bloated representation in politics. That was bad for politics, just as extra fat is bad for a person. Unfortunately, the situation still obtains today. Thirdly, everyone wishes for lasting order and stability. However, under these circumstances, scholars-turned-officials could hardly perpetuate the family glory beyond the third generation. While it was possible for a man from a poor family to rise to eminence via hard study, his offspring might well grow up as privileged wastrels. Then a diligent young man from another poor family would rise to high position through hard work. Most of the Prime Ministers of the Song and Ming dynasties came from poor families. Emperors, on the other hand, could pass on the throne down two or three hundred years, as long as the country enjoyed peace. Whereas ten years previously the Prime Minister might have been a poor scholar reading under a thatched roof in the countryside, the Emperor enjoyed royal tra- ditions for nine or ten generations. This is why the status and dignity of the Emperor and the power of the imperial family kept on rising, whereas the power of the government (as represented by the Prime Minister) kept dwindling. This was a major problem in Chinese traditional politics. Even though it ceased to exist in modern times, we should be aware of the problem when we read history in order to reach a reasonable understanding of Chinese politics in the past. Fourthly, the Chinese political system became increasingly complicated during its long history of development. When one system became problematic, another one was devised to solve the problems, but the process tended to exacerbate some problems. The more complicated the system, the more it frustrated talent. The trend made politics in later dynasties appear less sound than that of earlier times. If we take a factual and fair look at history, we can see that Chinese politics always emphasized rule by law, that is, rule under a system. Modern politics in the West actually emphasized rule of man, rule by reality. Why? Because all their political systems are based on election. The majority party is entitled to decide everything. Their legal system is decided and revised in accordance with the opinion of the majority. That’s why we say their system emphasizes the role of man and reality. Under our traditional politics, a system usually remained unchanged for several 140 Concluding Summary hundred years.

Load more

  59

Copy Link