THE APPEAL OF THE SCHOLAR LIANG CH'I-CHAO
We have already referred in several places to the extraordinary rôle scholarship and the literary appeal play in the governance of China. It is necessary to go back to the times of the birth of the Roman Empire, and to invoke the great figure of Cicero, to understand how greatly the voice of men of recognized intellectual qualities influences the nation. Liang Ch'i-chao, a man of some forty-five years, had long been distinguished for his literary attainments and for the skill with which, though unversed in any Western language, he had expounded the European theory and practice of government to his fellow-countrymen. To his brain is due the coining of many exact expressions necessary for parliamentary government, his mentality having grown with the modern growth of China and adapted itself rather marvellously to the requirements of the Twentieth Century. A reformer of 1898—that is one of the small devoted band of men who under Kang Yu Wei almost succeeded in winning over the ill-fated Emperor Kwang Hsu to carrying out a policy of modernizing the country in the teeth of fierce mandarin opposition, he possessed in his armoury every possible argument against the usurpation Yuan Shih-kai proposed to practise. He knew precisely where to strike—and with what strength; and he delivered himself over to his task with whole-hearted fervour. It having become known that he was engaged in preparing this brief for the people of China, every influence was brought to bear to prevent such a disastrous publication. Influential deputations were sent to him to implore him to remember the parlous international situation China found herself in,—a situation which would result in open disaster if subjected to the strain of further discords. For a time he hesitated launching his counter-stroke. But at length the Republican Party persuaded him to deal the tyrant the needed blow; and his now famous accusation of the Chief Executive was published.
Its effect was immediate and very far-reaching. Men understood that armed revolt was in the air. The almost Biblical fervour which pervades this extraordinary document shows an unusual sense of moral outrage. The masterly analysis of the Diaz régime in Mexico coupled with the manner in which—always pretending to be examining the conduct of the Mexican—he stabs at Yuan Shih-kai, won the applause of a race that delights in oblique attacks and was ample proof that great trouble was brewing. The document was read in every part of China and everywhere approved. Although it suffers from translation, the text remains singularly interesting as a disclosure of the Chinese mentality; whilst the exhaustive examination of political terms it contains shows that some day Chinese will carry their inventive genius into fields they have hitherto never openly invaded. Especially interesting is it to contrast the arguments of such a man with those of a decadent such as Yang Tu.
FROM REPUBLIC TO MONARCHY
Before I proceed with my argument I wish to make plain two points. One is that I am not one of those reformers whose ears are their brains, and who are intoxicated with the doctrine of republicanism. I have, therefore, no partiality for the republican form of government nor any bias for or against other forms of government. This can be proved by my literary work during the last ten years. The second point is that I am not one of the veteran conservatives who lay so much stress on the importance of having a dynasty. For such are the thoughts of men who only seek to adjust themselves to existing conditions. If one wishes to consider the present situation of the country without bias or prejudice he must disregard the rise or fall of any particular family. Only those who bear in mind these two points can read my argument with real understanding.
I. THE QUESTION OF KUO-TI
Some time ago I said that, as political students, we should only care for Cheng-ti, i.e., the form of government and not for Kuo-ti, i.e., the form of state. Do not call this trifling with words, for it is a principle which all critics of politics should follow and never depart from. The reason is that critics of politics should not, because they cannot, influence the question of Kuo-ti. They should not influence the question of Kuo-ti because so long as the question of Kuo-ti remains unsettled the major portion of the administration remains at a stand-still. Thus there will be no political situation properly so called and there will be no political questions to discuss (here the term political means really administrative). If a critic of politics, therefore, interfere with the question of Kuo-ti, he will be leading the nation into a condition of political instability, thus undermining the ground on which the people stand. Such critics can be likened unto a man trying to enter a house without ascending the steps or crossing a river without a boat.
They cannot influence the question of Kuo-ti. The force which drives and steers the change of one form of State or vice versa is generally not derived from mere politics. If the time is not ripe, then no amount of advocacy on the part of critics can hasten it. If the time is ripe, nothing the critics say can prevent it. He who indulges himself in the discussion of the problem of Kuo-ti—i.e., the form of States, as a political student, is ignorant of his own limitations and capacity. This is as true of the active politicians as of the critics; for the first duty of an active politician is to seek for the improvement and progress of the administration of the existing foundation of government. A step beyond this line is revolution and intrigue, and such cannot be the attitude of a right-minded active politician or statesman. This is looking at it from the negative side.
From the positive, that is, the progressive point of view, there is also a boundary. Such actions under one form of government are political activities, and under the opposite form of government are also political activities. But these are not questions of political principle. For only when a man sacrifices the ideals which he has advocated and cherished during the whole of his life does the question of principle arise. Therefore the great principle of looking to the actual state of administration of the form of government and leaving the mere form of state in the background is a principle that is applicable under all circumstances and should be followed by all critics of politics.