Book: The Fight For The Republic in China

B >> Bertram Lenox Putnam Weale >> The Fight For The Republic in China




Mr. Ko: I thank you very much for what you have said. Your
discussion is interesting and I can understand it well. The proper
method of procedure and honesty of purpose which you have mentioned
will tend to wipe out all former corruption.

Mr. Ko, or the stranger, then departed.

On this note the pamphleteer abruptly ends. Having discussed _ad
nauseam_ the inadequacy of all existing arrangements, even those made by
Yuan Shih-kai himself, to secure a peaceful succession to the
presidency; and having again insisted upon the evil part soldiery cannot
fail to play, he introduces a new peril, the certainty that the foreign
Powers will set up a puppet Emperor unless China solves this problem
herself, the case of Korea being invoked as an example of the fate of
divided nations. Fear of Japan and the precedent of Korea, being
familiar phenomena, are given a capital position in all this debate,
being secondary only to the crucial business of ensuring the peaceful
succession to the supreme office. The transparent manner in which the
history of the first three years of the Republic is handled in order to
drive home these arguments will be very apparent. A fit crown is put on
the whole business by the final suggestion that the Constitutional
Government of China under the new empire must be a mixture of the
Prussian and Japanese systems, Yang Tu's last words being that it is
best to be honest with the people!

No more damning indictment of Yuan Shih-kai's regime could possibly have
been penned.




CHAPTER IX

THE MONARCHY PLOT

THE MEMORANDUM OF DR. GOODNOW


Although this extraordinary pamphlet was soon accepted by Chinese
society as a semi-official warning of what was coming, it alone was not
sufficient to launch a movement which to be successful required the
benign endorsement of foreign opinion. The Chinese pamphleteer had dealt
with the emotional side of the case: it was necessary to reinforce his
arguments with an appeal which would be understood by Western statesmen
as well as by Eastern politicians. Yuan Shih-kai, still pretending to
stand aside, had kept his attention concentrated on this very essential
matter; for, as we have repeatedly pointed out, he never failed to
understand the superlative value of foreign support in all his
enterprises,--that support being given an exaggerated value by the
public thanks to China's reliance on foreign money. Accordingly, as if
still unconvinced, he now very naively requested the opinion of his
chief legal adviser, Dr. Goodnow, an American who had been appointed to
his office through the instrumentality of the Board of the Carnegie
Institute as a most competent authority on Administrative Law.

Even in this most serious matter the element of comedy was not lacking.
Dr. Goodnow had by special arrangement returned to Peking at the
psychological moment; for having kicked his heels during many weary
months in the capital, he had been permitted in 1914 to take up the
appointment of President of an American University on condition that he
would be available for legal "advice" whenever wanted. The Summer
vacation gave him the opportunity of revisiting in the capacity of a
transient adviser the scenes of his former idleness; and the
holiday-task set him by his large-hearted patron was to prove in as few
folios as possible that China ought to be a Monarchy and not a
Republic--a theme on which every schoolboy could no doubt write with
fluency. Consequently Dr. Goodnow, arming himself with a limited amount
of paper and ink, produced in very few days the Memorandum which
follows,--a document which it is difficult to speak of dispassionately
since it seems to have been deliberately designed to play into the hands
of a man who was now openly set on betraying the trust the nation
reposed in him, and who was ready to wade through rivers of blood to
satisfy his insensate ambition.

[Illustration: President Li Yuan-Hung and the General Staff watching the
Review.]

[Illustration: March-past of an Infantry Division.]

Nothing precisely similar to this Goodnow Memorandum has ever been seen
before in the history of Asia: it was the ultramodern spirit impressed
into the service of mediaeval minds. In any other capital of the world
the publication of such a subversive document, following the Yang Tu
pamphlet, would have led to riot and tumult. In China, the home of
pacifism, the politicians and people bowed their heads and bided their
time. Even foreign circles in China were somewhat nonplussed by the
insouciance displayed by the peripatetic legal authority; and the
Memorandum was for many days spoken of as an unnecessary
indiscretion.[16] Fastening at once on the point to which Yang Tu had
ascribed such importance--the question of succession--Dr. Goodnow in his
arguments certainly shows a detachment from received principles which
has an old-world flavour about it, and which has damned him for ever in
the eyes of the rising generation in China. The version which follows is
the translation of the Chinese translation, the original English
Memorandum having been either mislaid or destroyed; and it is best that
this argument should be carefully digested before we add our comments.

DR. GOODNOW'S MEMORANDUM

A country must have a certain form of government, and usually the
particular form of government of a particular country is not the
result of the choice of the people of that country. There is not any
possibility even for the most intellectual to exercise any mental
influence over the question. Whether it be a monarchy or republic,
it cannot be the creation of human power except when it is suitable
to the historical, habitual, social and financial conditions of that
country. If an unsuitable form of government is decided upon, it may
remain for a short while, but eventually a system better suited will
take its place.

In short, the form of government of a country is usually the natural
and only result of its circumstances. The reasons for such an
outcome are many, but the principal one is Force. If we study the
monarchical countries we will find that usually a dynasty is created
by a person who is capable of controlling the force of the entire
country and overthrowing other persons opposed to him, working
towards his goal with an undaunted spirit. If this man is capable of
ruling the nation and if he is a rare genius of the day, and the
conditions of the country are suited for a monarchical government,
he as a rule creates a new dynasty and his descendants inherit the
same from generation to generation.

If this is so, then the solution of a difficult position of a
country is to be found in a monarchy rather than a republic. For on
the death of a monarch no doubt exists as to who shall succeed him,
and there is no need of an election or other procedure. Englishmen
say, "The King is dead, Long live the King." This expresses the
point. But in order to attain this point it is necessary that the
law of succession be definitely defined and publicly approved;
otherwise there will not be lacking, on the death of the monarch,
men aspiring to the throne; and as no one is qualified to settle the
dispute for power, internal disturbance will be the result.

Historically speaking no law of succession is so permanently
satisfactory as that used by the nations of Europe. According to
this system the right of succession belongs to the eldest son of the
monarch, or failing him, the nearest and eldest male relative. The
right of succession, however, may be voluntarily surrendered by the
rightful successor if he so desires; thus if the eldest son declines
to succeed to the throne the second son takes his place. This is the
rule of Europe.

If instead of this law of a succession a system is adopted by which
the successor is chosen by the monarch from among his sons or
relatives without any provision being made for the rights of the
eldest son, disturbance will be the inevitable result. There will
not be a few who would like to take possession of the throne and
they will certainly plot in the very confines of the palace,
resulting in an increase of the sufferings of an aged monarch; and,
even if the disaster of civil war be avoided, much dispute will
arise owing to the uncertainty of the successor--a dangerous
situation indeed.

Such is the lesson we learn from history. The conclusion is,
speaking from the viewpoint of the problem of transmission of power,
that the superiority of the monarchical system over the republican
system is seen in the law of succession,--that is the eldest son of
the ruler should succeed to the throne.

Leaving out the nations of ancient times, the majority of countries
in Europe and Asia have adopted the monarchical system. There are,
however, exceptions such as _Wen-ni-shih_ (Venice) and Switzerland,
which adopted the republican form of government; but they are in the
minority while most of the great nations of the world have adopted
the monarchical form of government.

During the recent century and a half the attitude of Europe has
undergone a sudden change and the general tendency is to discredit
monarchism and adopt republicanism. The one great European power
which first attempted to make a trial of republicanism is Great
Britain. In the Seventeenth Century a revolution broke out in
England and King Charles I. was condemned to death by Parliament and
executed as a traitor to the nation. A republic was established and
the administration was called republican with Cromwell as regent,
_i.e._ President. Cromwell was able to control the power of
government because at the head of the revolutionary army he defeated
the King. This English republic, however, only existed for a few
years and was finally defeated in turn. The reason was that the
problem of succession after the death of Cromwell was difficult to
solve. Cromwell had a desire to place his son in his place as regent
after his death, but as the English people were then unsuited for a
republic and his son had not the ability to act as chief executive,
the republic of England suddenly disappeared. The British people
then abandoned the republican system and readopted the monarchical
system. Thus Charles II., the son of Charles I., was made King not
only with the support of the army but also with the general consent
of the country.

The second European race which attempted to have a republic was the
American. In the Eighteenth Century the United States of America was
established in consequence of the success of a revolution. But the
American revolution was not at first intended to overthrow the
monarchy. What it sought to do was to throw off the yoke of the
monarchy and become independent. The revolution, however, succeeded
and the circumstances were such that there was no other alternative
but to have a republic: for there was no royal or Imperial
descendant to shoulder the responsibilities of the state. Another
factor was the influence of the advocates of republicanism who came
to America in the previous century from England and saturated the
minds of the Americans with the ideas of republicanism. The minds of
the American people were so imbued with the ideas of republicanism
that a republican form of government was the ideal of the entire
race. Had General Washington--the leader of the revolutionary
army--had the desire to become a monarch himself he would probably
have been successful. But Washington's one aim was to respect
republicanism and he had no aspiration to become King. Besides he
had no son capable of succeeding him on the throne. Consequently on
the day independence was won, the republican form of government was
adopted without hesitation, and it has survived over a hundred
years.

There is no need to ask whether the result of the establishment of
the American Republic has been good or bad. The republican form of
government is really the making of the United States of America.
But it should be remembered that long before the establishment of
the republic, the American people had already learned the good laws
and ordinances of England, and the constitution and parliamentary
system of England had been long in use in America for over a hundred
years. Therefore the change in 1789 from a colony into a Republic
was not a sudden change from a monarchy to a republic. Thorough
preparations had been made and self-government was well practiced
before the establishment of the republic. Not only this, but the
intellectual standard of the American people was then already very
high; for ever since the beginning of American history attention was
given to universal education. No youth could be found who could not
read, and the extent of education can thus be gauged.

Soon after the formation of the American Republic, the French
Republic followed in her footsteps. Now in France a monarchical
government was in existence before the declaration of independence,
and the supreme power of administration was in the hands of the
King. The people, having never participated in the administration
and lacking experience in self-government, made a poor experiment of
the republican system which they suddenly set up. The result was
that for many years disorder reigned, and the tyranny of the
military governments held sway one after another. After the defeat
of Napoleon, the monarchical system was restored as a result of the
intervention of other Powers. The second revolution in 1830 again
resulted in the restoration of the monarchy but the power of the
common people was considerably increased. The monarchy was again
overthrown in 1848 and a Republic formed in its stead--the nephew of
Napoleon was then made President. This President, however, once more
discarded republicanism and set up a monarchy for himself. It was
not until after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 that Napoleon III.
was overthrown and the final Republic established which has lived
for half a century now, there being every likelihood of its
continuing in its present form.

Indeed the Republic of France has every prospect of being permanent,
but the permanency is only the result of a hundred years' political
revolution. For a hundred years the foundations were being laid by
means of an energetic and persistent campaign of education, which
increased the political knowledge of the people. The people were
also allowed to participate in political affairs, and so gained
experience in self-government. This is why the French Republic is a
success. Then in France and America they have found a solution for
the difficult problem of the nation, that is the problem of
succession of the government in power. The President of France is
elected by the Parliament while the President of America is elected
by the people. The people of these two countries are all experienced
in self-government as a result of participation in political
affairs. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these two countries
have all laid emphasis on universal education by having an extensive
system of schools, subsidized by the Government. The intellectual
standard of these two peoples is therefore fairly high.

As a result of the examples set up by France and America, at the
end of the Eighteenth Century the Spanish colonies in Central and
South America also declared their independence one after the other.
The conditions then prevailing in those countries were somewhat
similar to those of America. When their independence was declared,
it seemed that the republican system was best suited to their
condition. For on the one hand there was no imperial house to direct
the people, on the other hand the Republic of North America was a
good example to follow. Public opinion was at that time unanimous
that since the republican form of government was the ideal form, it
was suitable for any country and any people. The idea thus quickly
spread and almost every country became a republic. The independence
of these countries, however, was secured only at the cost of a hard
struggle and once the spirit of rebellion was aroused it became
difficult to suppress in a short while. And since education was not
then universal the intellect of the people was low. What they were
expert in was in autocratic methods. No task is harder than to
establish a republic in a country, the intelligence of whose people
is low. These republics, therefore, reaped no good results although
they tried to retain republicanism unnaturally. The consequence is
that the republics of Central and South America have been a living
drama of continuous internal disturbance. One after another their
military leaders have grasped the power of administration.
Occasionally there has been peace but this peace has only been
secured by the iron hand of one or two powerful men holding the
power. Such powerful men, however, seldom pay any attention to
educational matters, and one never hears of their establishing any
schools. As to the people under them, they are not allowed to
participate in political affairs by which their experience in
politics may be ripened. The result is, on the man in power becoming
sick or dying--and the iron rule relaxed--that those who wish to
usurp the power of the state rise at once; and as the satisfactory
solution of the problem of succession cannot be found, those
undertakings which have made progress during the time of peace are
swept away without a single exception. In extreme cases the
disturbances continue to such an extent that the country falls into
a state of anarchy. Thus the social and financial factors of the
whole country are trodden on and destroyed under foot.

The conditions now prevailing in Mexico have been many times
duplicated in other republics in Central and South America. For this
can be the only result from adopting the republican form of
government where the political and financial conditions are
unsuited. Diaz, a military leader, once held the power of state in
his own hand, and when he became the President of Mexico it looked
as if the political problem was solved thereby. Diaz, however, did
not push education but instead oppressed the people and did not
allow them to participate in politics. When he was advanced in age
and his influence decreased, he lost entire control once the banner
of rebellion was raised. Ever since the overthrow of Diaz, military
leaders of that country have been fighting one another and the
disturbance is developing even to-day. In the present circumstances
there is no other means to solve the political problem of Mexico
except by intervention from abroad. (_Sic._)

Among the republics of Central and South America, however, there are
some which have made fairly good progress, the most prominent of
which are Argentina, Chili, and Peru. For some time there was
disorder in the first two republics immediately after the adoption
of the republican system, but later peace was gradually restored and
the people have been enjoying peace. As regards Peru, although some
disturbances have occurred since the establishment of the republican
government, the life of the Republic as a whole has been peaceful.
All of these three countries, however, developed constitutional
government with the utmost vigour. Even as far back as in the
earlier part of the Nineteenth Century Argentina and Chili were
already endeavouring to excel each other in their progress, and as
for Peru, its people were encouraged even while under the Imperial
regime, to participate in political affairs. The success of these
three republics is, therefore, not a mere chance happening.

The study of the experiences of these republics of Central and South
America and the history of France and the United States brings
forward two points which we should carefully consider:--

1. In order to make a satisfactory solution of the problem of
succession to the chief executive in a republican country, it is
necessary that the country be in possession of an extensive system
of schools; that the intellect of its people has been brought up to
a high standard by means of a patient process of universal
education; and that they be given a chance to participate in
political affairs for the purpose of gaining the needed experience,
before the republican form can be adopted without harm;

2. It is certain that the adoption of a republican form of
government in a country where the people are low in intellect and
lack experience and knowledge in political affairs, will not yield
any good result. For as the position of the President is not
hereditary, and consequently the problem of succession cannot be
satisfactorily solved, the result will be a military dictatorship.
It might be possible to have a short-lived peace but such a period
of peace is usually intermingled with periods of disturbances,
during which the unduly ambitious people may rise and struggle with
each other for the control of power, and the disaster which will
follow will be irremediable.

This is not all. The present tendency is that the European and other
western Powers will not tolerate the existence of a military
government in the world; for experience shows that the result of
military government is anarchy. Now this is of vital importance to
the interests of the European Powers. Since their financial
influence has extended so far, their capital as well as their
commercial undertakings of all branches and sorts have reached every
corner of the world, they will not hesitate to express their views
for the sake of peace, as to the system of government a country
should adopt, although they have no right to interfere with the
adoption of a form of government by another nation. For unless this
is done they cannot hope to get the due profit on the capital they
have invested. If this view is carried to the extreme, the political
independence of a nation may be interfered with or even the
Government may be replaced with some other organ. If such steps are
necessary to attain their views the Powers will not scruple to take
them. Therefore no nation will be allowed hereafter to choose its
own form of government if that results in constant revolution, as in
the case of South America in the last century. The Governments of
the future should, therefore, carefully consider the system to be
adopted for the maintenance of peace; otherwise control by
foreigners will be unavoidable.

We will now proceed to consider what significance these points
reviewed above have for the political conditions of China. China,
owing to the folly of an absolute monarchical system, has neglected
the education of the masses, whose intellectual attainments have
been consequently of a low standard. Then, there is the additional
fact that the people have never had a voice in the doings of their
government. Therefore they have not the ability to discuss politics.
Four years ago the absolute monarchy was suddenly changed into a
Republic. This movement was all too sudden to expect good results.
If the Manchus had not been an alien race, which the country wished
to overthrow, the best step which could then have been adopted was
to retain the Emperor and gradually lead him to a constitutional
government. What the Commissioners on Constitutional Government
suggested was quite practical if carried out gradually until
perfection was reached. Unfortunately the feeling of alien control
was bitter to the people and the maintenance of the throne was an
utter impossibility. Thus the monarchy was overthrown and the
adoption of a republican system was the only alternative.

Thus we see that China has during the last few years been
progressing in constitutional government. The pioneering stage of
the process was, however, not ideal. The results could have been
much better if a person of royal blood, respected by the people, had
come out and offered his service. Under the present conditions China
has not yet solved the problem of the succession to the Presidency.
What provisions we have now are not perfect. If the President should
one day give up his power the difficulties experienced by other
nations will manifest themselves again in China. The conditions in
other countries are similar to those obtaining in China and the
dangers are also the same. It is quite within the bounds of
possibility that the situation might threaten China's independence
if internal disturbance should occur in connection with this problem
and not be immediately put down.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.