No form of government is ideal. Its reason of existence can only be judged by what it has achieved. It is the height of folly to rely on theoretical conclusions as a basis for artificial arbitration as to what should be accepted and what discarded. Mere folly, however, is not to be seriously condemned. But the danger and harm to the country will be unmeasurable if a person has prejudiced views respecting a certain form of government and in order to prove the correctness of his prejudiced views, creates artificially a situation all by himself. For this reason my view has always been not to oppose any form of government. But I am always opposed to any one who engages in a propaganda in favour of a form of government other than the one under which we actually live. In the past I opposed those who tried to spread the republican form of government while the country was under monarchical government, and the arguments I advanced in support of my views were written in no fewer than 200,000 words. Even so late as the ninth month after the outbreak of the Revolution I issued a pamphlet entitled "The Problem of the Building of the New China," which was my last attempt to express my views respecting the maintenance of the old form of government.
What obligations had I to the then Imperial House? Did it not heap persecution and humiliation on me to the utmost of its power and resources? I would have been an exile even to this day had it not been for the Revolution. Further, I was no child and I was fully aware of the disappointment which the then Government caused in the minds of the people. Yet I risked the opposition of the whole country and attempted to prolong the life of the dying dynasty. I had no other view in mind except that there would be some possibility of our hope being realized if the whole nation would unite in efforts to improve the administration under the then existing form of government. I believed that because the people were not educated for a change. But if the status of the country should be changed before the people are educated and accustomed to the new order of things, the danger and hardship during the transitional period of several years would be incalculable. In certain circumstances this might lead to the destruction of the nation. Even if we are spared the tragedy of national extinction, the losses sustained by the retarding of the progress of the administration would be unredeemable. It is painful to recall past experiences; but if my readers will read once more my articles in the Hsin Min Tung Pao during the years 1905 and 1906 they will see that all the sufferings which the Republic has experienced bear out the predictions made then. The different stages of the sinister development have been unfolding themselves one by one just as I said they would. It was unfortunate that my words were not heeded although I wept and pleaded. Such has been the consequence of the change of the state of the country—a change of Kuo-ti.
Yet before we have hardly ceased panting, this talk of a second change is on us. I am not in a position to say exactly how this talk had its beginning. Ostensibly it was started by the remarks of Dr. Goodnow. But I am unable to say whether Dr. Goodnow actually gave out such a view or for what purpose he expressed such a view. From what he told the representative of a Peking newspaper he never expressed the views attributed to him. Be this as it may, I cannot help having my doubts. All Dr. Goodnow is alleged to have said bearing on the merits of the monarchical and republican system of government as an abstract subject of discussion, such as the necessity of the form of state (Kuo-ti) being suited to the general conditions of the country and the lessons we should learn from the Central and South American republics, are really points of a very simple nature and easily deduced. How strange that among all this large number of politicians and scholars, who are as numerous as the trees in the forest and the perch in the stream, should have failed for all these years to notice these simple points; and now suddenly make a fetish of them because they have come out of the mouth of a foreigner. Is it because no one except a foreign doctor can discover such facts? Why even a humble learner like myself, though not so learned even to the extent of one ten-thousandth part of his knowledge, more than ten years ago anticipated what the good doctor has said; and I said much more and in much more comprehensive terms. I have no desire to talk about my work, but let my readers glance through the copies of the Hsin Min Tsung Pao, Yin Ping Shih Wen Chi, the "Fight between Constitutional Advocates" and "Revolutionary Advocates," the "Question of the Building of the New China," etc., etc. My regret is that my eyes are not blue and my hair not brown, and hence my words were not acceptable to the nation!
III. RES JUDICATA
I do not say that the merits or otherwise of the republican system should not be discussed, but the time for such a discussion has passed. The most opportune time for such a discussion was in 1911 when the Revolution had just begun; but since then further discussions should not be tolerated. There might have been some excuse if this subject had been brought up for discussion when the second revolution broke out at Hukow on the Yangtsze river or before the President was formally inaugurated, or before the Powers formally recognized the Republic; but the excuse even then would have been a weak one. Where were you then, advocates of monarchy? Could you not at that time have brought out an essay by one of the great scholars of the world as a subject for discussion? Could you not have cited the cases of American republics as a warning for us that these republics were by no means peaceful? Yet at that time when the heroes of discretion were daily pushing the progress of the republican cause, stating that republicanism was the panacea for all the world's administrations and that republicanism was not a new factor in Chinese history, a humble and ignorant man like myself, then a stranger in a foreign land, was burdened with the fear of the unsuitability of the republican system to China and wrote articles in support of his own views and wept till his eyes were dry.
Do you not realize that the State is a thing of great importance and should not be disturbed carelessly? How can you then experiment with it and treat it as if you were putting a chest into a dead hole, saying "Let me place it here for the moment and I will see to it later." The status of the State can be likened to marriage between man and woman. The greatest care should be taken during courtship. The lady should then exercise care to see that the man whom she is taking to be a life companion is worthy of her. During this period it is the duty of her relatives and friends to point out to her any danger or misunderstanding even to the extent of offending her feelings. But if you leave her alone at this stage when there is plenty of time to change her course, and— what is more—urge her to tie the knot despite incompatibility, what right have you afterwards to make the impudent suggestion to the wife that her husband is not a man to whom she should cling for life? Is such a course a charitable way of doing things?
If indeed the republican cause is enough to cause the destruction of the nation then you, the advocates of monarchy, have placed the country in a position from which she has no hope of ever coming out independent. You are the men who—to the best of your ability—inculcated and pressed the adoption of the republican cause. The proverb says, "If now, why not then?" How many days can a person live that you, not satisfied with one great sin, are again to commit another. It is not long since the Republic was first established; yet you, the veterans of republicanism, are the leaders to-day in advocating the overthrow of the Republic. Yes. It is indeed strange that I, a man who once opposed the republican cause, should now be opposing you. Nothing is stranger and nothing is so fateful.
But our modern critics say we prefer a constitutional monarchy to an autocratic republic. Now whether we are constitutional or not is a question concerning the administration, while the question whether we are republican or not is a question concerning the form or status of the country. We have always held that the question of Kuo-ti is above discussion and that what we should consider is the actual condition of administration. If the administration (government) is constitutional, then it matters not whether the country is a Republic or a Monarchy. If the government is not constitutional then neither a republic nor a monarchy will avail. There is no connexion, therefore, between the question of Kuo-ti and the question of Cheng-ti. It is an absurd idea to say that in order to improve the administration we must change the Kuo-ti—the status or form of the country—as a necessity. If this idea is to be entertained for a single moment the changes even in constitutional countries will be endless. But the curious paradox is that in former days the critics said that only a republic, not a monarchy, could be constitutional; whereas, the critics now say that a monarchy, not a republic, can alone be constitutional!
IV. THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONSTITUTION
Let me therefore lay down a simple definition of what a Constitution is before discussing whether the contentions of the critics are reasonable. My opponents will agree with me that the main principle of a constitutional government is that the legislative organ should always balance the executive and that the exercising of the administrative power is always limited to a certain extent. They will also agree that the most important point of a so-called constitutional monarchy is that the monarch should act as a figurehead, and that the establishment of a responsible cabinet is an indispensable accompaniment. If these simple principles are recognized then we must put up the theory for discussion. Let us then raise the question who shall be the monarch. In plain words, is the person in our mind the President? or any other person? (In view of the repeated declarations of the President that he will never consent to become an Emperor, this suggestion on my part is a gross insult to his character, but I crave to excuse myself as this is only mere speculation and supposition.) What shall we do with the President if we find another man? The President, having so long borne the burdens of the State, will certainly be only too willing to vacate his post to live in retirement as far as his own person is concerned, but can we imagine that the country will allow the President to retire? If not, then are we going to ask the President to form a responsible cabinet under a figurehead monarch? Even if we take it for granted that the President, out of love for the country, would be willing to sacrifice his own principles and yield to the wish of the country, it will be dangerous indeed if he—a person on whom the whole nation depends—is placed in the path of parliament. Therefore the contention that a constitutional monarchy will be attained if a person other than the President be made a monarch is false and baseless.