Book: The Fight For The Republic in China

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





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.

Shall we then make the present President a monarch? Of course the
President will not consent to this. But leaving this aside let us
suppose that the President, in consideration of the permanent
welfare of the country, is willing to sacrifice everything to
satisfy the wish of the people, do we expect that he will become a
mere figurehead? A figurehead monarch is, to adapt the saying of the
west, a fat porker, a guinea-pig, that is, good as an expensive
ornament. Will it be wise to place so valuable a personage in so
idle a position at a time when the situation is so extremely
critical?

Even if we are willing to suffer the President to become a
figurehead it will remain a question whether a responsible cabinet
can ever be formed. I do not say that the President will not allow a
responsible cabinet to exist under him. My contention is that there
is no one, within my knowledge, who commands respect enough and is
capable of taking over the responsibilities of President Yuan. For
who can replace the Great President in coping with our numerous
difficulties? If we select an ordinary man and make him bear the
great burdens, we will find that in addition to his lack of ability
rendering him unequal to the occasion, his lack of dominating
influence will disqualify him from exercising authority. It was for
the purpose of meeting the requirements of the existing conditions
that the Cabinet system was changed into a Presidential system--an
excellent substitution for a weakened administration. Conditions in
the next two or three years will not be very much different from
what they are now. Therefore, the contention that the administration
will be changed overnight for the better after a change in the form
of the State is, if not a wicked untruth to deceive the common
people, the ridiculous absurdity of a bookworm. Thus the theory that
a constitutional monarchy will immediately follow, if the President
consents to become a monarch, is also fallacious.

Can it be possible that those who are now holding up the
constitutional principle as a shield for their monarchical views
have a different definition for the term "constitution"? The Ching
(Manchu) Dynasty considered itself as possessing a constitution in
its last days. Did we recognize it as such? Let me also ask the
critics what guarantee they have to offer that the constitution will
be put into effect without hindrance as soon as the form of State is
changed. If they cannot give any definite guarantee, then what they
advocate is merely an absolute monarchy and not a constitutional
monarchy. As it is not likely to be a constitutional monarchy, we
may safely assume that it will be an imperial autocracy. I cannot
regard it as a wise plan if, owing to dislike of its defects, the
Republic should be transformed into an Imperial autocracy. Owing to
various unavoidable reasons, it is excusable in spite of violent
opposition to adopt temporarily autocratic methods in a republican
country. But if the plan proposed by present-day critics be put into
effect, that on the promise of a constitution we should agree to the
adoption of a monarchy, then the promise must be definitely made to
the country at the time of transition that a constitutional
government will become an actuality. But if, after the promise is
made, existing conditions are alleged to justify the continuance of
autocratic methods, I am afraid the whole country will not be so
tolerant towards the Chief Executive. To assume outwardly the role
of constitutional government, but in reality to rule in an
unconstitutional manner, was the cause of the downfall of the Ching
Dynasty. The object lesson is not obscure. Let us take warning by
it.


V. FALLACIES OF THE MONARCHISTS

If, on the other hand, the present-day critics are really in earnest
for a constitution, then I am unable to understand why they believe
that this cannot be secured under the Republic but must be obtained
in a roundabout way by means of a monarchy. In my view the real
hindrances to the adoption of a constitution at the present day in
China are the existing conditions, viz. the attitude of the
officials and the traditions and intellectual standards of the
people. But these hindrances have not resulted from the adoption of
republicanism. Therefore they cannot be expected to disappear with
the disappearance of the Republic. For instance, from the President
downward to the minor official of every official organ in the
capital or in the provinces, every one inclines to be independent of
the law, and considers it convenient to deal with affairs as he
pleases. This is the greatest obstacle to constitutional government.
Now has that anything to do with the change or not of the form of
State? Again, the absence, on the part of the people, of interest in
political affairs, of knowledge of politics, of political morality
and strength, and their inability to organize proper political
parties to make use of an inviolable parliament, are also hindrances
to the attainment of a constitution. Now what have these things to
do with a change in the form of the States? If I were to go on
naming such hindrances one by one, I should count my fingers many
times over and I should not be through. Yet it is quite plain that
not a single one of these hindrances can be attributed to
republicanism.

To say that what we cannot get under the republic can be secured
immediately upon accepting a monarchical regime, or to say that
what can be secured under a monarchical regime can never be secured
in a republican period is beyond the understanding of a stupid man
like myself, although I have searched my brain for a valid reason.

My view is that if China is really in earnest for a constitution,
the President should set the example himself by treating the
Constitutional Compact as sacredly inviolable and compel his
subordinates to do the same. Every letter of the compact should be
carried out and no attempt should be made to step beyond its limits.

Meantime give the people as many opportunities as possible to
acquaint themselves with political affairs, and do not stifle the
aspirations of the people or weaken their strength or damp their
interest or crush their self-respect. Then within a few years we
shall be rewarded with results. If, instead of doing all these
things, we vainly blame the form of State, we are, as Chu Tse says,
like a boat that blames the creek for its curves.

The most powerful argument of those who advocate a change to a
monarchy is that there is every possibility of disturbance at the
time of a Presidential election. This is a real danger. It is for
this reason that ten years ago I did not dare to associate myself
with the advocates of republicanism. If the critics want to attack
me on this point to support of their contentions, I advise them not
to write another article but to reprint my articles written some
time ago, which, I think, will be more effective. Fortunately,
however, we have discovered a comparatively effective remedy. For,
according to the latest President Election Law, the term of the
President is to all intents and purposes a term for life. It is
therefore impossible for such dangers to appear during the life of
the President. What concerns us is therefore what will happen after
the departure of the present President for another world. This, of
course, is a question that we do not wish to touch upon; but since
every one, even the patriarchs, must die some day, let us face the
matter openly. If Heaven blesses China and allows the Great
President to devote himself to the country for ten or more
years--during which he will be able to assert the authority of the
government, cleanse officialdom, store-up strength, consolidate the
country, and banish all hidden dangers--then there will be nothing
to choose between a republic or a monarchy. If, on the other hand,
Heaven should not be pleased so to favour us and takes away our
Great President before he is half through with his great task, then
the fate of China is sealed. No changes in the form of State will
avail under any circumstances. Therefore the question whether China
will be left in peace or not depends entirely on the length of years
the Great President will live and what he will be able to accomplish
in his lifetime. Whether the country is ruled as a republic or a
monarchy, the consequences will be the same.

Do you still doubt my words? Let me go deeper into the analysis. The
difference between a republic and a monarchy lies only in the
methods of succession of the head of the nation. It is evident that
although a certain law of succession may be made during the lifetime
of the Head, it cannot take effect until his death; and whether or
not the effect thus intended will come up to expectations will
depend on two factors: (1) whether or not the merits and personal
influence of the predecessor will continue effective after his
death, and (2) whether or not there will be unscrupulous and
insubordinate claimants at the death of the Head, and, if any, the
number of such men and whether the point of dispute they raise be
well-founded. If these are taken as the basis for discerning the
future we will arrive at the same conclusion whether the country be
a republic or a monarchy.


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 role 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 role
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.

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