Chinese Polity and Political Thought

Chinese Polity

and Political Thought

BY PROF. S. V. PUNTAMBEKAR, M. A., BAR-AT-LAW.

Since 1911 China has been trying to maintain a republican form of government. In spite of the attempts of its first President, the late Yuan-shi-kai, and her provincial military governors, the various Trichuns, today in 1929 the Republic of China is a united country and a liberated country, having surmounted under the leadership of the famous nationalist leader, Dr. Sun-yat-sen, and his followers most of her internal difficulties and her external complications. Though internal organisation on modern lines and external relations on an equal international basis will take some time to be consolidated and achieved, China seems now to have reached a stage when the reactionarism of her old officers and Trichuns, and the extra-territorial rights of the foreigners are not likely to return. Her national strength has become centralised and her progress seems to have already started on the basis of the three principles of nationalism, democracy and economic livelihood.

The adoption of a republican and parliamentary form in her central government does not mean that China had no knowledge or practice of democracy in her local government and institutions. Moreover, all her institutions have been democratic in operation. Thus writes Giles in The Civilisation of China: "The nominal form of government is an irresponsible autocracy; its institutions are likewise autocratic in form but democratic in operation."

China possesses a long continuous history from about 2800 B. C. and we have chronological information about her kings and dynasties from that period. Though the information about early dynasties is fragmentary, semi-mythical and not well-authenticated, we begin to learn a good deal about her ideal rulers Yao, Shun and Yu from 2357 B. C. Their period was considered to be her Golden Age which lasted till 2197 B. C. and is also known as the Patriarchal period. Since then, China has had varied political experience in tribal, patriarchal, feudal, imperial and local organisations and also in her internal conflicts of dynasties and external wars with Huns, Tartars, Mongols and Manchus who tried to invade, to conquer and to rule her.

Our knowledge of the Chinese polity and political thought really dates from the writers of the Chou dynasty which lasted from 1122 B. C. to 249 B. C. and which gave thirty-five rulers to China. During this period, great teachers, thinkers and administrators arose. This period is also known as the Classical period of Chinese history, and we have to rely on the writers and books of this period in understanding the principles of Chinese polity and thought. There are unfortunately not many foreign writers even of a later period who can give us an insight into Chinese affairs till William of Rubruk, a Franciscan, and Marco Polo, a Venetian, gave accounts of their Eastern travels to the European world in the thirteenth century. No doubt there are a few references to China by Indians and Arabs who visited the country and stayed there for the purposes of religion or trade.

The great writers who laid down or emphasised the main principles and methods of Chinese society, polity, ethics and philosophy and have moulded Chinese life and thought up-till today are the famous Kung-fu-tse or Confucius (550 B. C.–478 B. C.) and his follower Mang-tse or Mencius (372 B. C.). Other teachers like Lao-tse (604-517B. C.) and his follower Chuang-tse are more metaphysical and individual in their thought and less ethical and social than the Confucian school. Moti who lived in the fifth century (450 B. C.) was a philosopher of mutual love and an altruist and an idealist who believed that the principle of love could reform society and maintain it. He founded his philosophy on the ideal of universal goodwill and advocated its full application in the dealings of men.

Loa-tse's school is, as stated above, mystical and meta-physical. In its ethical aspects and results it expects requiting hatred with goodness and following a life of primitive simplicity and purity, of non-assertion and non-resistance. It encourages becoming good, rather than doing good.

Thus there are three chief schools, namely those of Lao-tse, Confucius, and Moti, all of which developed during this period, and which show the fundamental bases of the Chinese mind. The social and ethical character of Confucian teaching and philosophy, the individual and the metaphysical character of Laocian teaching and philosophy, and the democratic and humanitarian character of Motian teaching and philosophy, show the individual, the national, and the cosmopolitan or idealistic traits of the Chinese mind and culture. But for the purposes of polity and political philosophy, the Confucian school advocating social conceptions of authority and obedience is more important as it has really moulded China in that respect. No doubt Laocian and Motian influence has been there but not much in matters of polity and society. One was too enlightenedly egoistic and the other too ideally altruistic. The Confucian school has tried to balance, adjust and harmonise the egoistic and altruistic elements in the composition of the Chinese society and its institutions by preaching a socio-ethical philosophy of strict social conduct, decorum and propriety.

The character of Confucian thought will therefore give us the political ideas of the Chinese. They have no writers who have written on purely political philosophy of the origin, nature, aim, forms and functions of the State, as we find in India the Arthasastrakaras and Rajasastrakaras, and in Greece the Sophist and the Socratic schools at that early period. Pure

political philosophy, divorced and disentangled from other aspects of thought, originated independently only in these two countries. But it is not that the Chinese writers and teachers were without any political ideas about the State. They were primarily social thinkers and developed a full social philosophy and a code of social rules of propriety and etiquette (li) based on certain fundamental conceptions of nature and also of human nature, and of man's moral behaviour. Legge says: "A life ordered in harmony with li would realise the highest Chinese ideal and surely a very high ideal of human character." And li means "consonanace with established principles, rules or customs" which is the highest form of life. Confucius said: "To subdue oneself and return to prosperity (li) is perfect virtue."

With the Chinese, State did not mean the whole society, as with the Greek thinkers of the Socratic school. With them the society included the State. To them, amongst the many organised aspects of complete social life, the State is only one aspect. It is an organisation of the community for purely political purposes. State or political community did not mean with them, as with the Greeks, the highest of all communities which embraces and subordinates all the rest. To the Greek, the State is the highest and the best and the self-sufficing entity. It is also the society, and if man is without it, he is, in Aristotle's words, "the tribeless, lawless, heartless one". Thus here in the political aspect of life and its secular organisation, every other human aspect of life, religious, social, economic, local and personal, was merged. There were no individual rights against the secular State; there was no voluntary self-governing group existence for any other non-political purpose of life outside the State. Man was considered by nature a political animal, and in the State alone–the perfected form of his associative and self-sufficing life–it was stated that he ought to live for attaining his perfect virtue or good. This was the absolutist or idealist conception of the State, omni-competent, just, and virtuous. There was none above it, beside it or within it which could oppose its rule and control. In it man's aim and end were justified and achieved.

This absolutist attitude was not adopted towards the origin, aim and function of the State by the Chinese or Hindus, nor did they develop an absolutist philosophy of an idealist State. In this Greek sense or the later Hobbesian, Austinian, Hegelian and Marxian sense, the Chinese and the Hindus did not conceive of the State. Their State theory or conception was purely political and functional, as a subordinate part of a larger social theory of human life and functions based on organic and functional ideas. In their view, human society has a number of aspects and a number of functions. State is only the political aspect, organised for the political function of protection of common interests and removal of conflicts within the social life of the community. In the social constitution and its aims and ideals, the State is bound and limited to its functional purpose. This is really a constitutional theory of politics. Man is not completely subordinated to or merged in the State. He lives a large part of his social and personal life outside it in independent groups or individually. He rises against it if it perverts or confuses its function and encroaches upon his other aspects and liberties of social and individual life.

We must view Chinese political philosophy or State theory from this point of view, and not from the Greek, German or Jurist points of view and deny its having developed any idea of State or political philosophy.

The Chinese do not possess a purely secular aim or standard of life. They possess, in their social customs and propriety ascribed to a Golden Age and past tradition and fully stated by Confucius, also a spiritual or ethical aim which moulds their view-point and inspires their institutions. To them the State does not precede all forms and institutions of life, nor succeed and supersede them as the final or the perfect form, either for the secular life of safety and security or the spiritual and ethical life of the highest good and virtue. We must study, therefore, Chinense political thought in the light of these observations about their views of life and conduct.

The Chinese believed in ‘nature’, as being good and as prescribing principles and rules for the right conduct of men, Nature is not bad but requites good with good and evil with evil. Thus the order of nature is moral and requires men to observe her laws or principles which are fixed. Men who possess li are really "living in consonance with fixed principles of nature". Men must follow it in order to become good, as the whole universe is doing it. This moral way is the way of man and universe. He who achieves it becomes the superior or the ideal or perfect man.

Man is thus conceived as a part of nature and has a function to perform according to nature's standard. He is good by nature. Confucius and Mencius advocated this view about the goodness of human nature. Mencius says: "Benevolence, righteousness, propriety and knowledge are not infused into us from without." Therefore in the beginning, man's nature is good. And if he regulates his life in accordance with the established principles of ethical order and harmony found in nature, his life is correct, moral, virtuous, perfect and best. Consequently his virtues, wisdom, beliefs, customs and institutions must all conform to these aims and principles and help to realise them. And the State is only one of such institutions.

Of course the criticism of such philosophy is how to find out these established principles of nature which are supposed to be embodied in customs. No doubt they are generally attributed to the superhuman or divine genius and wisdom of a teacher or a lawgiver or to those traditions which have survived the test of time and whose origin is not known or shrouded in mystery. Our difficulty, however, is that this can be said about every lawgiver and every ancient custom and hence the result is that there remains no common standard of goodness and its principles, and there are often conflicting standards found amongst different peoples and different ages or even amongst the same people. Such an interpretation of nature and its goodness leads to an authoritarian and static conception of society which is not very helpful to freedom and progress. It emphasises rigid forms, traditional ideas and static conceptions.

In order toget a proper idea of the Chinese conception of the State, the following extract from Confucius will help us:

"The illustrious ancients, when they wished to make clear and propagate the highest virtues to the world, first put their States in proper order. Before putting their States in proper order, they regulated their families. Before regulating their families, they cultivated their own selves. Before cultivating their own selves, they perfected their souls. Before perfecting their souls, they tried tobe sincere in their thoughts. Before trying to be sincere in their thoughts, they extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things and seeing them as they really were. When things were thus investigated, knowledge became complete. When knowledge was complete, their thoughts became sincere. When thoughts became sincere, their souls became perfect. When their souls became perfect, their own selves became cultivated. When their selves were cultivated, families became regulated, their States came to be put into, proper order. When their States were in proper order, then the whole world became peaceful and happy."

Here in this statement we find that the greatest emphasis is laid upon complete knowledge and sincere thought and virtuous character as the primary bases on which any social foundations could be raised and maintained. Hence the character of Chinese thought and the spirit of her social institutions could hardly be absolutist and authoritarian in character and working. The Chinese did not believe in revelations. They believed in the highest virtue and wisdom and accepted as guides philosophers like Confucius, Mencius or Lao-tse. Political power in the shape of royal absolutism or parliamentary sovereignty which made and sanctioned laws was not contemplated or allowed by the Chinese thought and practice. With them there is a law above and behind the political power itself. The people could resist or rebel when the political power encroached upon this antecedent constitution and, conception of society. The ruler was there no doubt to interpret and apply its rules and principles but not to change or subvert them. The people were the real and ultimate voice of the Heaven.

Western writers state that the Chinese form of government is based on the patriarchal idea and is a benevolent paternalism, while in Western political philosophy the development is a movement away from the patriarchal idea to an idea of the State as an abstract personality possessing inherent sovereignty.

No doubt the Chinese emphasise upon the leading of the good life by the people as well as by the ruler, but this does not mean they conceived of the Empire merely as an enlarged family under a patriarchal head who was all in all. The Emperor is merely a judge and a magistrate with definite functional duties. If he is considered a representative or Son of the Heaven, it is only for a certain purpose and under certain conditions. The ruler must be a sage so that there will be a great harmony in all things, and virtue, righteousness, and propriety will all remain in their proper places. He must know the laws of life and nature, get in harmony with the great scheme of things, and then direct the people in accordance with those laws. The successful ruler must know, understand, and direct his administration in conformity with the great laws of Heaven and Earth. Royal government no doubt was accepted as the ideal and only form by the Confucian school. But the ideal ruler was to take care in learning what led to perfection and excellence in government and in avoiding their opposites. The Chinese theory is a theory of government by good examples. There is the paternal notion only for the stressing of the welfare of the people. But there is no patriarchal tyranny, absolutism or despotism of the royal power, indicated or accepted by any writers of note of the Classical period who have moulded the Chinese mind and practice for all these centuries. The Chinese believe in the idea of one ruler, and the Empire as a sort of family with the Emperor at its head. The Emperor represents Heaven. ‘Hwungti’ meaning Emperor, signifies one possessing complete virtues and able to act on heavenly principles. There is no divine right conception here, because the Heaven is not understood as any personal God. The Chinese Heaven is more a system of nature, and its laws can be understood and observed by anyone through the exercise of his own faculties. They are laws of body and mind, and they come about through natural associations of men with men. The most perfect expressions of the will of Heaven are those expressed by the model rulers like Yao, Shun and Yu. They are not supernatural but wise and virtuous men, whose government was one of men of merit and happiness. Such an ideal ruler having positive wisdom, virtue and knowledge, is a representative of the Heaven working for the welfare of the people. There is no revealed code. He is not a priest or a divine monarch. Good government is the Emperor's responsibility, and his failure to discharge it is a sign of his unfitness and a cause for his removal. His failure means Heaven's displeasure. The people's right to depose him is inherent in his failure. If the Emperor is not virtuous or benevolent, he cannot remain as a ruler. The people are justified in deposing him. It is their recognised right. Hence there is no absolutist theory of the State, and no absolute right of the ruler. The State is a functional organisation and the ruler is a constitutional monarch. The constitution is laid down in the ‘Great Plan’ which prescribes the virtues of the ruler, his constituent and welfare functions, his responsibilities and duties, his departments and their work, and other necessary matters. This ‘Great Plan’ is in accordance with the law of nature. The ruler does not question the various relations and rules which Heaven has fixed but learns to keep them in harmony and order. This is the great Royal or perfect way. It is a government by a good man. His goodness is judged by his ability to carry out the ‘Great Plan’ which may be called a code or a constitution of good laws, laying down the duties of the ruler and the ruled. The ‘Great Plan’ is thus a regular scheme of government, its nature and functions.

There is a very great democratic conception amongst the Chinese which makes the people's pleasure or displeasure as the index of Heaven's approval or disapproval of the ruler's actions. Benevolence, righteousness, propriety, knowledge and harmony with the laws of nature, are to be the characteristics of a ruler.

Thus there is only one form of Government recognised and that is monarchy of a benevolent and virtuous type with a right of the people to depose a ruler if he goes wrong. Monarchy is an office and not a possession or ownership. It is not based on birth or force or any sanction but on the proper attainment of the wisdom and virtue by the ruler. The wise ruler acts for the commonweal and order of the people. Thus the people's position is very important in the government. The power of the people is the deciding voice. The government exists for the benefit of the governed. According to Mencius, "the people are the most important element; the sovereign the least important". "Heaven sees as my people see: Heaven hears as my people hear." The people and their voluntary groups and associations cannot be forced into submission by the ruler. Therefore it is the considered opinion of the scholars that the Chinese government, though paternal and autocratic in form, is democratic in its actual practice.

Whenever personal government is not limited by benevolence, it is despotic. The Chinese rulers were subject to restrictions almost as good as a written constitution. These were restrictions based on custom and rules of propriety, as binding as any restriction can be. The ruler cannot be absolute. He had no power to dispose at will of the lives and property of his subjects. The theory of the ruler being the Son of Heaven does not exempt him in political and personal matters from a definite code of etiquette, propriety, rules and aims. The ruler was subject to Heaven and the people determined what Heaven might be, according to Mencius. It was Confucius who laid down the system of propriety and interpreted the ‘Great Plan’ which was accepted by China and her social thinkers as their social and political constitution. Confucius emphasises on the people's part. "When a prince loves what the people love and hates what the people hate, then he is what is called the parent of the People." This is surely democratic in spirit and a response to the people's will. The wishes of the people gave the sanction to the rulers. Mencius says: "A sovereign who oppresses the people will be slain, and his kingdom will perish."

The attitude of the rulers and their authority were not to be despotic. The people were the final arbiters about the personal right of the rulers to rule and were thus the supreme political sovereign in the State.

The ruler has no right of legislation. The State is only concerned with the penal code. The civil law is not a State institution at all. It is the Chinese family and clan which regulate civil matters. In a number of non-political aspects of life, the Chinese form voluntary groups, and co-operative associations or guilds which regulate their lives and business. The village communities do a large part of self-governing work and are largely independent of the central government except for the payment of certain taxes. Mr. Thomas, a writer on Chinese political thought, calls the Chinese government, in spite of its monarchic form, a democracy in theory and practice. We can say that the Emperor really is only a symbol of unity of the Chinese people and a ceremonial centre of their political, religious and social constitution, and a link between the Heaven and the Earth, as the Son of the one and the parent or the representative of the other.

The Chinese civil service was organised, not on birth or wealth or religious privileges, but on the principle of merit and, educational qualifications. There were no caste, noble or priest privileges. The best man, tested in a competition open to all, was chosen as an official.

Thus the Chinese democracy rested on the following ideas :-

(1) The people's right to rebellion against the ruler who departs from the fundamental scheme and plan and propriety of the Chinese constitution.
(2) Heaven's will is based on the people's will.
(3) The people's non-political aspects of life organised by them in self-governing groups and co-operative associations or guilds which are democratically worked and are prior to and apart from the State.
(4) The people's local units such as villages and towns worked on a self-governing plan as also their family and clan organisations in their own sphere of life.
(5) The official class is chosen in a competitive examination which is open to all.
(6) The ruler has no law-making power in civil matters. He is only a judge or an arbiter and an administrator.
(7) He must conform to certain standards of virtue and propriety. Otherwise he is unfit and loses his right to rule and is to be deposed. He and his officials must both be virtuous and wise, and know, and work for, the good of the people, interfering as little as possible in their daily and normal life. They are there only to promote the virtue and to prevent the evil as understood, laid down and interpreted, by the Chinese sages of the Classical period of the Chou dynasty.

Such in short seems to be the character and working of the Chinese political mind and institutions before the advent of the Western influence and forms of government in the central power from 1911, when the modern Chinese republican period starts.