VI. THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION LAW
The Presidential Election Law, however, provides that the successor should be nominated by his predecessor, and the name of the successor so nominated is to be locked in the golden box in the stone strong-room. The President may now, on the one hand, multiply his merits and strengthen his personal influence so that the whole country will gladly bow to his wishes to the extent that even after his death they will not want to disobey his last wish, and on the other hand, the President may quietly ascertain the likely causes which would produce dissension, and take suitable steps to prevent and be rid of them. If the seed of dissension is in the ordinances, then alter the ordinances so that they may not be used as a tool by possible claimants. If the seed of dissension is in a person then cultivate that man, lead him to righteousness, place him in a suitable position so that he may be protected from temptation. Meanwhile let the President carefully select his successor on whom he may eventually lay the responsibilities of State (according to the Presidential Election Law the President is at liberty to suggest any one he likes, his own son or some one else). Let the nominee be placed in a responsible position so as to bring him to public notice. Give him real authority so that he may establish his influence. Place his name at the head of other men of little consequence in the golden box. Then there will be absolutely no ground for dispute when the time comes to open the box.
If every President will do likewise this system can be used without fear of a break for hundreds of years. Otherwise we will have only the Imperial system on paper to rely on for assistance, which is not even to be thought of. A glance through the pages of Chinese history will show the numerous cases in the reign of Emperors when princes fought in the very confines of the Emperor's palace while the corpse of their royal father lay unburied in the hall. Thus it is seen that the hidden cause of the safety or otherwise of the country does not lie with the mere formality of a constitution either in a republic or a monarchy.
VII. THE CASE OF DIAZ, THE DICTATOR
The critics bring up the example of Mexico where live rivals have been struggling with each other for the presidency, and the internal confusion of the Central and South American republics as well as Portugal, as an unquestionable proof of their contention that a republic is not so good as a monarchy. I imagine that the idea of these critics is that all these disturbances can be avoided if all these republics were changed into monarchies. Let me tell them that Diaz ruled over Mexico for thirty years, and only died as an exile in May last (I am not quite sure of the exact month). If indeed the struggle in Mexico was a fight for succession then the fight should not have begun until this year. And indeed if it were necessary to have a monarch to avoid the disturbance, and supposing that Diaz, thirty years ago, had a man like Dr. Goodnow to make the suggestion, and men like the Chou An Hui to spread it, and suppose that Diaz boldly took the advice and set up an Imperial system for himself, would Mexico then have a peace that would last as long as the ages?
If Diaz had assumed the throne I am positive he would long ago have been an exile in a foreign country before his imperial system could have come into effect or he himself become the proud founder of a new dynasty. What he would have held as an imperial charter would have become a mere scrap of paper. If he could not prevent rebellion even during his lifetime how can we expect an empty Imperial system to prevent it after his death. Even a child can see this. The disturbances in Mexico were unavoidable no matter under a republic or a monarchy. The reason? It is because Diaz, under the mask of a republic, actually played the rôle of a despot. During all the thirty years he held office he never devoted himself to the strengthening of the fundamental things of State, but diligently strengthened his own position. He massed an enormous number of troops for his own protection so that he might overawe the people. For fear that the troops might become arrogant and insubordinate, he provoked disagreement among them in order that he might play them round his fingers. He banished all those who opposed him, relying on force alone. In dealing with those who were really patriotic, he either corrupted their character by buying them with silver or removed them by assassination. He was a vainglorious man and spent money like water. From the foreign capitalists he borrowed in a most indiscriminate manner, while on the Mexican people he levied all sorts of cruel taxes. Thus the strength of the people was drained and the resources of the country were exhausted, creating a position over which he eventually had no control whatever. Ten years ago I wrote an article in the Hsin Min Tsung Pao remarking that Diaz was a matchless fraud. I said then that a nation-wide calamity would befall Mexico after his death and that the Mexican nation would be reduced to a mere shadow. (My friend Mr. Tang Chio-tun also wrote an article, before the internal strife in Mexico broke out, on the same subject and in an even more comprehensive way.) Luckily for Diaz he ruled under the mask of republicanism, for only by so doing did he manage to usurp and keep the presidential chair for thirty years. He would long ago have disappeared had he attempted to assume the rôle of an emperor. This is also true of the other republics of Central and South America. Their presidents almost without a single exception used military force as a stepping-stone to the presidential chair. We have yet to see the last military aspirant. The unsuitability of the country to the republican system is of course one of the reasons but I cannot agree with those who say that this is the only reason.
As to Portugal it is true that the change from the monarchy to republic has not stopped internal disturbance; but is it not a fact that Portugal became a republic as a result of internal disturbance and was it not during the existence of the monarch that the disturbance started? It is ridiculous to suppose that a republic will surely court disturbance while a monarchy will surely ensure peace and order. Is not Persia a monarchy? Is not Turkey a monarchy? Is not Russia a monarchy?
Read their history in recent decades and see how many years of peace they have had. There have been no election of presidents in these countries. Why then such unrest?
Again, why was the state of affairs during the Sixteen States of the Five Dynasty-Period and the Ten States of the Five Successions as deplorably miserable and disastrous as the state of affairs now prevailing in Mexico, although there was no election of Presidents then? In quoting objective facts as illustrations the critic should not allow his choice to be dictated by his personal like or dislike. Otherwise he will not be deceiving others than himself. Soberly speaking, any form of state is capable of either ensuring a successful government or causing rebellion. And nine cases out of ten the cause of rebellion lies in the conditions of the administration and not in the form of state. It cannot be denied, however, that the chances of rebellion and dissension are more frequent and easier when the form of state does not suit the conditions of the people. That is why I did not advocate republicanism; and even now I am not a blind believer in republicanism. In this I agree with you, the Chou An Hui people.
The reason why I have not decided to advocate boldly a change in the form of state is because for years my heart has been burdened with an unspeakable sorrow and pain, believing that ever since the mistake made in 1911 the hope for China's future has dwindled to almost nothing. On one hand I have been troubled with our inability to make the Republic a success, and on the other I have been worrying over the fact that it would be impossible to restore the monarchy. The situation has so worked on my troubled mind that at times I seemed to be beside myself. But as the whole country seemed to be already in a state of desperation I have come to the conclusion that it would not do any good to add pain to sorrow. Therefore, instead of uttering pessimistic views I have been speaking words of encouragement to raise our spirits. In this, however, I have exhausted my own strength. My friend, Mr. Hsu Fo-su, told me some five or six years ago that it was impossible for China to escape a revolution, and as a result of the revolution could not escape from becoming a republic, and by becoming a republic China would be bound to disappear as a nation. I have been meditating on these words of ill-omen and sought to help the country to escape from his prediction but I have not yet found the way.