There was no illusion of complete personal liberty. Such a notion was scarcely thinkable. Every individual had his family, his village, and-although this was by no means universally true-his _hui_, whether one or, less commonly, several. He was never left solitary and defenseless against powerfully organized interests. No more intimate community of interests could be discovered than that of a family, since the community of interests there would verge on the total. Ancient Chinese society provided the individual with mechanisms to make his interests felt and effective, through the family, the village, and the a.s.sociation.
In the West the line of influence runs from the individual, who feels a want, to the group which a.s.sists him in expressing it, to the government, upon which the group exercises pressure, in order that the government may use its power to secure what the first group wants from some other group.
The line runs, as it were, in the following manner: individual-group-government-group. In China the group exercised its pressure for the most part directly. The individual need not incorporate himself in a group to secure the recognition and fulfillment of his interests; he was by birth a member of the group, and with the group was mobile. In a sense old Chinese society was thoroughly democratic.
On the basis of such a background, Sun Yat-sen did not believe that the Chinese had too much government, but, rather, too little. He did not cry for liberty; he denounced its excess instead. On the basis of the old social organization, which was fluid and yet stable, he sought to create a democracy which would pertain to the interests of the nation as a whole, not to the interests of individuals or groups. These could go on in the traditional manner. The qualifications implicit in Sun Yat-sen"s championship of democracy must be kept in mind, and his acquaintance with the democratic techniques of the old society be allowed for. Otherwise his advocacy of the recognition of nationalist rights and his neglect or denunciation of individual liberties might be taken for the dogma of a lover of tyranny or dictatorship.
Old China possessed a considerable degree of egalitarianism, of social mobility, of popular control, and of popular partic.i.p.ation, through the civil service, in what little government there was. In addition, ideological control ensured a minimum of conflicts of interests and consequently a maximum facility for self-expression without conflict with other individuals, groups, or society as a whole. Finally, the protection and advancement of individuals" rights and interests were fostered by a system of group relationships which bound virtually every individual into a group and left none to fall, solitary, at the mercy of others who were organized.
Why then did Sun Yat-sen advocate democracy? What were his justifications for it, in a society already so democratic?
Five Justifications of a Democratic Ideology.
Sun Yat-sen, realizing the inescapable necessity of nationalism, did not immediately turn to democracy as a necessary instrument for its promotion.
He hated the Manchus on the Dragon Throne-human symbols of China"s subjugation-but at first considered replacing them with a new Chinese dynasty. It was only after he had found the heirs of the Ming dynasty and the descendants of Confucius to be unworthy that he turned to republicanism and found democracy, with its many virtues.(114) He early became enamored of the elective system, as found in the United States, as the only means of obtaining the best governors.(115) In the final stage he had departed so far from his earlier way of thinking that he criticized Dr. Goodnow severely for recommending the re-introduction of a monarchy in China.
Sun Yat-sen, as a good nationalist, made earnest efforts to a.s.sociate his doctrines with those of the sages and to avoid appearing as a proponent of Western civilization. It is, consequently, not unusual to discover him citing Confucius and Mencius on _vox populi vox dei_, and saying,
"The government of Yao and Shun was monarchical in name but democratic in practice, and for that reason Confucius honored these men."(116)
He considered that democracy was to the sages an "ideal that could not be immediately realized,"(117) and therefore implied that modern China, in realizing democracy, was attaining an ideal cherished by the past.
Democracy, other things apart, was a filial duty. This argument, while persuasive in Chinese, can scarcely be considered Sun Yat-sen"s most important one in favor of democracy.
His most cogent and perhaps most necessary argument was based on his conception of national liberty as opposed to the liberty of the individual. He delivered a spirited denunciation of those foreigners who criticized the Chinese for being without liberty, and in the next breath complained that the Chinese had no government, that they were "loose sand." (Another fashionable way of expressing this idea is by saying that "China is a geographical expression.") He said: "If, for instance, the foreigners say that China is "loose sand," what do they finally mean by that expression? They mean to say that each individual is free, that everybody is free, that each one takes the maximum of liberty, and that, as a result, they are "loose sand"."(118) He pointed out that the Chinese had not suffered from the loose autocracy in the Empire, and that they had no historical justification for parroting the cry "Liberty!" simply because the Westerners, who had really lacked it, had cried and fought for it. He cited John Millar"s definition of liberty, given in _The Progress of Science Relative to Law and Government_, 1787: "True liberty consists in this: that the liberty of each individual is limited by the non-infringement on the liberty of others; when it invades the liberty of others, it is no longer liberty."(119) Sun Yat-sen had himself defined liberty as follows: "Liberty consists in being able to move, in having freedom of action within an organized group."(120) China, disorganized, had no problem of individual liberty. There was, as a matter of fact, too much liberty.(121) What the Chinese had to do was to sacrifice some of their individual liberty for the sake of the organized nation. Here we find a curious turn of thought of which several other examples may be found in the _San Min Chu I_: Sun Yat-sen has taken a doctrine which in the West applies to the individual, and has applied it to the nation. He believes in liberty; but it is not the liberty of the individual which is endangered in China. It is the liberty of the nation-which has been lost before foreign oppression and exploitation. Consequently he preaches national and not individual liberty. Individual liberty must be sacrificed for the sake of a free nation.(122) Without discipline there is no order; without order the nation is weak and oppressed. The first step to China"s redemption is _min tsu_, the union (nationalism) of the people. Then comes _min ch"uan_, the power of the people. The liberty of the nation is expressed through the power of the people.
How is the power of the people to be exercised? It is to be exercised by democratic means. To Sun Yat-sen, the liberty of the nation and the power of the people were virtually identical. If the Chinese race gained its freedom, that freedom, exercised in an orderly manner, could mean only democracy. It is this close a.s.sociation of nationalism (_min tsu_) and democracy (_min ch"uan_), this consideration of democracy as the expression of nationalism, that forms, within the framework of the _San Min Chu I_, what is probably the best nationalist argument for democracy-best, that is, in being most coherent with the Three Principles as a whole.
If the view of democracy just expressed be considered an exposition of the fundamental necessity of democracy, the third argument may be termed the dialectical or historical championship of democracy. Sun Yat-sen believed in the existence of progress, and considered that there was an inevitable tendency toward democracy: the overthrow of the Manchus was a result of the "... world tide. That world current can be compared to the course of the Yangtze or the Yellow River. The flow of the stream turns perhaps in many directions, now toward the north, now toward the south, but in the end flows toward the east in spite of all obstacles; nothing can stem it.
In the same way the world-tide pa.s.ses ...; now it has arrived at democracy, and there is no way to stem it."(123) This belief in the inevitability as well as the justice of his cause encouraged Sun, and has lent to his movement-as his followers see it-something of the impressive sweep that the Communists see in their movement.
Sun Yat-sen did not devise any elaborate scheme of dialectical materialism or economic determinism to bolster his belief in the irreversibility of the flow to democracy. With infinite simplicity, he presented an exposition of democracy in s.p.a.ce and time. In time, he saw a change from the rule of force to theocracy, then to monarchy, and then to democracy; this change was a part of the progress of mankind, which to him was self-evident and inevitable.(124) In s.p.a.ce he perceived that increasingly great numbers of people threw off monarchical rule and turned to democracy. He hailed the breakdown of the great empires, Germany and Russia, as evidence of the power of democracy. "... if we observe (things) from all angles, we see that the world progresses daily, and we realize that the present tide has already swept into the age of democracy; and that no matter how great drawbacks and failures may be, _democracy will maintain itself in the world for a long time_ (_to come_). For that reason, thirty years ago, we promoters of the revolution, _resolved that it was impossible to speak of the greatness of China or to carry out the revolution without advocating democracy_."(125)
A fourth argument in favor of democracy, and one which cannot be expanded here, since it involves reference to Sun Yat-sen"s practical plans for the political regeneration of China, was his a.s.sertion that democracy was an adjunct to appropriate and effective public administration. Sun Yat-sen"s plans concerning the selection of officials in a democratic state showed that he believed the merging of the Chinese academic-civil service technique with Western democracy would produce a paragon among practicable governments.
Fifthly and finally, Sun regarded democracy as an essential modernizing force.(126) In the introduction of Western material civilization, which was always an important consideration to his mind, he felt that a certain ideological and political change had to accompany the economic and technological revolution that-in part natural and in part to be stimulated by nationalist political interference-was to revolutionize the _min sheng_ of China, the economic and social welfare of the Chinese people. While this argument in favor of democracy is similar to the historical argument, it differs from the latter in that Sun Yat-sen saw the technique of democracy influencing not only the political, but the economic and social, life of the people as well. The growth of corporate responsibility, the development of a more rigid ethical system in matters of finance, the disappearance of too strict an emphasis upon the personal element in politics (which has clouded Chinese politics with a fog of conspiracy and intrigue for centuries), a trust in mathematics (as shown in reliance upon the voting technique for ascertaining public opinion), and the development of a new kind of individual aggressiveness and uprightness were among the changes which, necessary if China was to compete in the modern world, democracy might a.s.sist in effecting. While these desiderata do not seem large when set down in the vast field of political philosophy, they are of irritating importance in the inevitable trivalities upon which so much of day-to-day life depends, and would undoubtedly improve the personal tone of Sino-Western relations. Sun never divorced the theoretical aspects of his thought from the practical, as has been done here for purposes of exposition, and even the tiniest details of everyday existence were the objects of his consideration and criticism. In itself, therefore, the modernizing force of democracy, as seen in Sun"s theory, may not amount to much; nevertheless, it must not be forgotten.(127)
Democracy, although secondary in point of time to his theory, is of great importance in Sun"s plans for the political nature of the new China. He justified democracy because it was (1) an obligation laid upon modern China by the sages of antiquity; (2) a necessary consequence of nationalism, since nationalism was the self-rule of a free people, and democracy the effectuation of that self-rule, and democracy the effectuation of that self-rule; (3) the government of the modern age; China, along with the rest of the world, was drawn by the tide of progress into the age of democratic achievement; (4) the political form best calculated for the obtaining of good administration; and (5) a modernizing force that would stir and change the Chinese people so as to equip them for the compet.i.tions of the modern world.
In the lecture in which he criticized the inadequacies of democracy as applied in the West, Sun Yat-sen made an interesting comment on the proletarian dictatorship which had recently been established in Russia.
"Recently Russia invented another form of government. That government is not representative; it is _absolute popular government_. In what does that absolute popular government really consist? As we know very little about it, we cannot judge it aright, but we believe that this (absolute popular government) is _evidently much better than a representative government_."(128) He went on immediately to say that the Three Principles were what China needed, and that the Chinese should not imitate the political systems advocated in Europe and America, but should adapt democracy in their own way. In view of his objection to a permanent cla.s.s dictatorship, as opposed to a provisional party dictatorship, and the very enthusiastic advocacy of democracy represented by the arguments described above, it appears unlikely in the extreme that Sun Yat-sen, had he lived beyond 1925, would have abandoned his own plan of democracy for China in favor of "absolute popular government." The phrase was, at the time, since Sun Yat-sen was seeking Russian a.s.sistance, expedient for a popular lecture. Its importance might easily be exaggerated.
The Three Natural Cla.s.ses of Men.
Having in mind the extreme peril in which the Chinese race-nation stood, its importance in a world of Western or Western-type states, and seeing nationalism as the sole means of defending and preserving China, Sun Yat-sen demanded that the Chinese ideology be extended by the acquisition of knowledge. If this modernizing and, if a neologism be permitted, stateizing process were to succeed, it must needs be fostered by a well-prepared group of persons within the society.
In the case of the Confucian social theory, it was the scholars who took the ideology from the beliefs and traditions of the agrarian ma.s.ses or whole people, rectified it, and gave it back to them. This continuous process of ideological maintenance by means of conformity (_li_) and, when found necessary, rectification (_cheng ming_) was carried on by an educational-political system based upon a non-hereditary caste of academician-officials called _Mandarins_ by the early Western travellers.
In the case of those modern Western states which base their power upon peculiar ideologies, the philosophy-imposing caste has been a more or less permanent party- or cla.s.s-dictatorship. Superficially, the party-dictatorship planned by Sun Yat-sen would seem to resemble these.
His theory, however, presents two bases for a cla.s.s of ideologues: one theoretical, and presumably based upon the Chinese; and one applied, which is either of his own invention or derived from Western sources. The cla.s.s of ideological reformers proposed in what may be called the applied aspect of his theory was to be organized by means of the party-dictatorship of the Kuomintang. His other basis for finding a cla.s.s of persons whose influence over the ideology was to be paramount was more theoretical, and deserves consideration among the more abstract aspects of his doctrines.
He hypothecated a tripart.i.te division of men:
Men may be divided into three cla.s.ses according to their innate ability or intelligence. The first cla.s.s of men may be called _hsien chih hsien cho_ or the "geniuses." The geniuses are endowed with unusual intelligence and ability. They are the creators of new ideas, fathers of invention, and originators of new achievements. They think in terms of group welfare and so they are the promoters of progress. Next are the _hou chih hou cho_ or the "followers." Being less intelligent and capable than the _hsien chih hsien cho_, they do not create or invent or originate, but they are good imitators and followers of the first cla.s.s of men.
The last are the _pu chih pu cho_, or the "unthinking," whose intelligence is inferior to that of the other two cla.s.ses of men.
These people do what the others instruct them to do, but they do not think about it. In every sphere of activity all three cla.s.ses of men are present. In politics, for example, there are the creators or inventors of new ideas and movements, then the propagators of these ideas and movements, and lastly the ma.s.s of men who are taught to practice these ideas.(129)
The harmony of this conception with the views of Confucius is evident.
Presbyter is Priest writ large; genius is another name for scholar. Sun, although bitterly opposed to the mandarinate of the Empire and the pseudo-Republic, could not rid himself of the age-old Chinese idea of a cla.s.s organization on a basis of intellect rather than of property. He could not champion a revolutionary creed based upon an economic cla.s.s-war which he did not think existed, and which he did not wish to foster, in his own country. He continued instead the consistent theory of an aristocracy of intellect, such as had controlled China before his coming.
The aristocracy of intellect is not to be judged, however, by the old criteria. Under the old regime, a scholar-ruler was one who deferred to the wisdom of the ancients, who was fit to perpetuate the mysteries of the written language and culture for the benefit of future ages, and who was meanwhile qualified by his training to a.s.sume the role of counsellor and authority in society. In the theory of Sun Yat-sen, the genius leader is not the perpetuator but the discoverer. He is the social engineer. His work is similar to that of the architect who devises plans for a building which is to be built by workers (the unthinking) under the guidance of foremen (the followers).(130) In this guise, the new intellectual aristocrat is a figure more akin to the romantic Western pioneers and inventors than to the serene, conservative scholars of China in the past.
The break with Western thought comes in Sun"s distinguishing three permanent, natural cla.s.ses of men. Though in their apt.i.tudes the _hsien chih hsien cho_ are more like modern engineers than like archaic literary historians, they form a cla.s.s that is inevitably the ruling cla.s.s. To Marxism this is anathema; it would imply that the Communist party is merely the successor of the bourgeoisie in leading the unthinking ma.s.ses about-a more benevolent successor, to be sure, but still a cla.s.s distinct from the led proletariat of the intellect. To Western democratic thought, this distinction would seem at first glance to invalidate any future advocacy of democracy. To the student interested in contrasting ideological control and political government, the tripart.i.te division of Sun Yat-sen is significant of the redefinition in modern terms, and in an even more clear-cut manner, of the Confucian theory of scholarly leadership.
How were the geniuses of the Chinese resurgence to make their knowledge useful to the race-nation? How could democracy be recognized with the leadership and ideological control of an intellectual cla.s.s? To what degree would such a reconciliation, if effected, represent a continuation, in different terms, of the traditions and inst.i.tutions of the old Chinese world? Questions such as these arise from the fusion of the old traditions and new necessities.
Ch"uan and Neng.
The contrast between _ch"uan_ and _neng_ is one of the few aspects of Sun Yat-sen"s theory of democracy which persons not interested in China may, conceivably, regard as a contribution to political science. There is an extraordinarily large number of possible translations for each of these words.(131) A version which may prove convenient and not inaccurate, can be obtained by translating each Chinese term according to its context.
Thus, a fairly clear idea of _ch"uan_ may be obtained if one says that, applied to the individual, it means "power," or "right," and when applied to the exercise of political functions, it means "sovereignty" or "political proprietorship." _Neng_, applied to the individual, may mean "competency" (in the everyday sense of the word), "capacity" or "ability to administer." Applied to the individual, the contrast is between the ability to have political rights in a democracy, and the ability to administer public affairs. Applied to the nation, the contrast is between sovereignty and administration.(132)
Without this contrast, the doctrine of the tripart.i.te cla.s.sification of men might destroy all possibilities of a practical democracy. If the Unthinking are the majority, how can democracy be trusted? This contrast, furthermore, serves to illuminate a further problem: the paradoxical necessity of an all-powerful government which the people are able to control.
If this distinction is accepted in the establishment of a democracy, what will the consequences be?(133)
In the first place, the ma.s.ses who rule will not necessarily govern.
Within the framework of a democratic const.i.tution, they will be able to express their wishes, and make those wishes effective; but it will be impossible for them to interfere in the personnel of government, whether merely administrative or in the highest positions. It will be forever impossible that a "swine-representative" should be elected, or that one of those transient epochs of carpet-baggery, which appear from time to time in most Western democracies, should corrupt the government. By means of the popular rights of initiative, referendum, election and recall, the people will be able to control their government in the broad sweep of policy. The government will be beyond their reach insofar as petty political interference, leading to inferiority or corruption, is concerned.
In the second place, the benefits of aristocracy will be obtained without its cost. The government will be made up of men especially fit and trained to govern. There will, hence, be no difficulty in permitting the government to become extraordinarily powerful in contrast with Western governments. Since the ma.s.ses will be able to choose between a wide selection of able leaders, the democracy will be safeguarded.
Sun Yat-sen regarded this as one of the cardinal points in his doctrines.
In retaining the old Chinese idea of a scholar cla.s.s and simultaneously admitting Western elective and other democratic techniques, he believed that he had found a scheme which surpa.s.sed all others. He saw the people as stockholders in a company, and the administrators as directors; he saw the people as the owner of an automobile, and the administrators as the chauffeur.
A further consequence of this difference between the right of voting and the right of being voted for, but one to which Sun Yat-sen did not refer, necessarily arises from his postulation of a cla.s.s of geniuses leading their followers, who control the unthinking ma.s.ses. That is the continuity which such a group of ideological controllers would impart to a democracy.
Sun Yat-sen, addressing Chinese, took the Chinese world for granted. A Westerner, unmindful of the background, might well overlook some comparatively simple points. The old system, under which the Empire was a sort of educational system, was a familiar feature in the politics which Sun Yat-sen criticized. In arguing for the political acceptance of inequality and the guarantee of government by a select group, Sun was continuing the old idea of leadership, modifying it only so far as to make it consistent with democracy. Under the system he proposed, the two great defects of democracy, untrustworthiness and lack of continuity of policy, would be largely eliminated.