THE MONARCHY MOVEMENT IS OPPOSED
THE APPEAL OF THE SCHOLAR LIANG CH'I-CHAO
We have already referred in several places to the extraordinary
role 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 regime 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 back-
ground is a principle that is applicable under all circumstances
and should be followed by all critics of politics.
II. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST CHANGE
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 Mim 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 republic 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 afterward 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 today 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
life-time 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 life-time 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 Mim 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.
IX. "DIVINITY DOTH HEDGE A KING"
Now my friends, you have stated in a worthy manner the reasons why
the republican form of state cannot assist China to maintain her
existence; now let me state why it is impossible to restore the
monarchical system. The maintenance of the dignity of a monarch
depends on a sort of mystical, historical, traditional influence
or belief. Such an influence was capable of producing
unconsciously and spontaneously a kind of effect to assist
directly or indirectly in maintaining order and imparting blessing
to the country. In this lies the value of a monarchy. But dignity
is a thing not to be trifled with. Once it is trodden down it can
never rise again. We carve wood or mould clay into the image of a
person and call it a god (idol). Place it in a beautiful temple,
and seat it in a glorious shrine and the people will worship it
and find it miraculously potent. But suppose some insane person
should pull it down, tread it under foot and throw it into a dirty
pond and suppose some one should discover it and carry it back to
its original sacred abode, you will find the charm has gone from
it. Ever since the days of monarchical government the people have
looked on the monarch with a sort of divine reverence, and never
dared to question or criticize his position. After a period of
republicanism, however, this attitude on the part of the common
people has been abruptly terminated with no possibility of
resurrection. A survey of all the republics of the world will tell
us that although a large number of them suffered under republican
rule, not a single one succeeded in shaking itself free of the
republican fetters. Among the world republics only France has had
her monarchical system revived twice after the republic was first
inaugurated. The monarchy, however, disappeared almost
immediately. Thus we may well understand how difficult it is for a
country to return to its monarchical state after a republican
regime. It may be said that China has had only a short experience
of the republican regime; but it must also be remembered that the
situation has been developing for more than ten years and in
actual existence for about four years. During the period of
development the revolutionists denounced the monarch in most
extravagant terms and compared him to the devil. Their aim was to
kill the mystic belief of the people in the Emperor; for only by
diminishing the dignity of the monarch could the revolutionary
cause make headway. And during and after the change all the
official documents, school textbooks, press views and social
gossip have always coupled the word monarch with reprobation. Thus
for a long while this glorious image has been lying in the dirty
pond! Leaving out the question that it is difficult to restore the
monarchy at the present day, let us suppose that by arbitrary
method we do succeed in restoring it. You will then find that it
will be impossible for it to regain in former dignity and
influence.
Turning to another aspect, the most natural course would seem to
be a revival of the last dynasty. It might have been possible for
a Charles II and Louis XVIII of China to appear again, if not for
the hatred of racial domination. But since the last dynasty was
Manchu this is out of the question. If a new dynasty were set up
it would require many years of hard labour and a great deal of
organizing to succeed. Even then only a few have succeeded in this
way in prolonging their dynasties by actually convincing the
people of their merits. Therefore for several years I have been
saying to myself that it would be easier to strengthen the country
and place it on a sounder basis if it were possible for us to
return to our monarchical state. And to revive the monarchical
government there are two ways.
One is that after thoroughly reforming the internal administration
under the leadership of the present Great President, that is, when
all the neglected affairs of the country have been well attended
to, every family in the land made happy and prosperous, the army
well-trained and all the necessary bitterness "eaten," the
President, when a suitable opportunity presented itself, should
have the rare fortune to gain a decisive victory over a foreign
foe; then his achievements would be such that the millions of
people would compel him to ascend the throne, and so he would hand
his sceptre on to his descendants for endless ages.
The second possibility is that after a second great internal
disturbance, resulting in the whole country being thrown into a
state of utter confusion and cut up into small independent states,
the President should suppress them and unite the country into one
empire. We will, of course, not pray for the second possibility to
come about as then there will be little left of the Chinese
people. And no one can be certain whether the person who shall
succeed in suppressing the internal strife will be a man of our
own race or not. Thus the result will not differ very much from
national extinction. As to the first possibility, we know that an
exceedingly capable man is now in a most powerful position; let
him be given time and he will soon show himself to be a man of
success. Does not the last ray of hope for China depend on this?
X. THE UNRIPE PEAR.
This is why I say we should not deliberately create trouble for
the Republic at this time to add to the worries of the Great
President so that he might devote his puissant thoughts and
energies to the institution of great reforms. Then our final hope
will be satisfied some day. But what a year and what a day we are
now living in? The great crisis (Note: The reference is to the
Japanese demands) has just passed and we have not yet had time for
a respite. By the pressure of a powerful neighbour we have been
compelled to sign a "certain" Treaty. Floods, drought, epidemics
and locusts visit our country and the land is full of suffering
while robbers plunder the people. In ancient times this would have
been a day for the Imperial Court to remove their ornaments and
live in humiliation. What do the people of our day mean by
advising and urging the President to ascend the throne? To pluck
the fruit before it is ripe, injures the roots of the tree; and to
force the premature birth of a child kills the mother. If the last
"ray of hope" for China should be extinguished by the failure of a
premature attempt to force matters, how could the advocates of
such a premature attempt excuse themselves before the whole
country? Let the members of the Chou An Hui meditate on this
point.
The odes say, "The people are tired. Let them have a respite." In
less than four years' time from the 8th moon of the year Hsin Hai
we have had many changes. Like a bolt from the blue we had the
Manchu Constitution, then "the Republic of Five Races," then the
Provisional President, then the formal Presidency, then the
Provisional Constitution was promulgated, then it was suddenly
amended, suddenly the National Assembly was convoked, suddenly it
was dissolved, suddenly we had a Cabinet System, suddenly it was
changed to a Presidential System, suddenly it was a short-term
Presidency, suddenly it was a life-term Presidency, suddenly the
Provisional Constitution was temporarily placed in a legal
position as a Permanent Constitution, suddenly the drafting of the
Permanent Constitution was pressed. Generally speaking the average
life of each new system has been less than six months, after which
a new system quite contrary to the last succeeded it. Thus the
whole country has been at a loss to know where it stood and how to
act; and thus the dignity and credit of the Government in the eyes
of the people have been lowered down to the dust. There are many
subjects respecting internal and diplomatic affairs which we can
profitably discuss. If you wish to serve the country in a
patriotic way you have many ways to do so. Why stir the peaceful
water and create a sea of troubles by your vain attempt to excite
the people and sow seeds of discord for the State?
XI. THE ASSEVERATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT
One or two points more, and I am finished. These will be in the
nature of a straight talk to the Chou An Hui. The question I would
ask in plain words is, who is the person you have in your mind as
the future Emperor? Do you wish to select a person other than the
Great President? You know only too well that the moment the
President relieves his shoulder of the burdens of State the
country will be thrown into confusion. If you entertain this plot
with the deliberation of a person bent upon the destruction of the
country, then the four hundred million of people will not excuse
you.
Is the man you have in mind the present President? Heaven and
earth as well as all living creatures in China and other lands
know what the President swore to when he took the oath of office
as President. Rumours have indeed been circulated, but whenever
they reached the ears of the President he has never hesitated to
express his righteous mind, saying that no amount of pressure
could compel him to change his determination. All officials who
have come into close contact with the President have heard such
sentiments from the lips of the President on not a few occasions.
To me his words are still ringing in my ears. General Feng Kuo-
chang has conveyed to me what he was told by the President. He
says that the President has prepared a "few rooms" in England, and
that if the people would not spare him he would flee to the refuge
he has prepared. Thus we may clearly see how determined the
President is. Can it be possible that you have never heard of this
and thus raise this extraordinary subject without any cause. If
the situation should become such that the President should be
compelled to carry out his threat and desert the Palace, what
would you say and do then?
Or, perhaps, you are measuring the lordly conduct of a gentleman
with the heart of a mean man, saying to yourself that what the
President has been saying cannot be the truth, but, as Confucius
has said, "say you are not but make a point to do it," and that,
knowing that he would not condemn you, you have taken the risk. If
so, then what do you take the President for? To go back on one's
words is an act despised by a vagabond. To suggest such an act as
being capable of the President is an insult, the hideousness of
which cannot be equalled by the number of hairs on one's head. Any
one guilty of such an insult should not be spared by the four
hundred million of people.
XII. THE CHOU AN HUI AND THE LAW
Next let me ask if you have read the Provisional Constitution, the
Provisional Code, the Meeting and Association Law, the Press
Regulations, the various mandates bearing on the punishment of
persons who dare conspire against the existing form of state? Do
you not know that you, as citizens of the Republic, must in duty
bound observe the Constitution and obey the laws and mandates? Yet
you have dared openly to call together your partisans and incite a
revolution (the recognized definition in political science for
revolution is "to change the existing form of state"). As the
Judiciary have not been courageous enough to deal with you since
you are all so closely in touch with the President, you have
become bolder still and carry out your sinister scheme in broad
daylight. I do not wish to say what sort of peace you are planning
for China; but this much I know, that the law has been violated by
you to the last letter. I will be silent if you believe that a
nation can be governed without law. Otherwise tell me what you
have got to say?
It is quite apparent that you will not be satisfied with mere
shouting and what you aim at is the actual fulfilment of your
expectations. That is, you wish that once the expected monarchy is
established it may continue for ever. Now by what principle can
such a monarchy continue for ever, except that the laws and orders
of that dynasty be obeyed, and obeyed implicitly by all, from the
Court down to the common people? For one to adopt methods that
violate the law while engaged in creating a new dynasty is like a
man, who to secure a wife, induces the virtuous virgin to commit
fornication with him, on the plea that as a marriage will be
arranged preservation of her virtue need not be insisted upon. Can
such a man blame his wife for immorality after marriage? If, while
still citizens of a republican country, one may openly and boldly
call meetings and organize societies for the overthrow of the
Republic, who shall say that we may not in due time openly and
boldly call meetings and organize societies for the overthrow of
the monarchy? What shall you say if in future there should be
another foreign doctor to suggest another theory and another
society to engage in another form of activity? The Odes have it,
"To prevent the monkey from climbing a tree is like putting mud on
a man in the mire." For a person to adopt such methods while
engaged in the making of a dynasty is the height of folly. Mencius
says, "a Chuntse when creating a dynasty aims at things that can
be handed down as good examples." Is it not the greatest
misfortune to set up an example that cannot be handed down as a
precedent? The present state of affairs is causing me no small
amount of anxiety.
XIII. A POSTSCRIPT
A copy of Yang Tu's pamphlet, "Constitutional Monarchy or the
Salvation of China" reached me after I had finished writing the
above discussion. On a casual glance through it I alighted upon
the following passage: "What is known as a constitutional country
is a country which has definite laws and in which no one, from the
ruler down to the common people, can take any action that is not
permitted by law. Good men cannot do good outside of the bounds of
law; neither can bad men do evil in violation of it." This is
indeed a passage that breathes the very spirit of
constitutionalism. Let us ask Mr. Yang if the activities of the
Chou An Hui, of which he is the President, are acts within the
bounds of law? Mr. Yang is a good man. It is therefore possible
for him to believe that he is not doing evil in violation of the
law; but has he not at least been doing good outside of the bounds
of law? If an advocate of constitutional monarchy is capable of
doing such unlawful acts, we may easily imagine what sort of a
constitutional monarchy he advocates; and we may also easily
imagine what the fate of his constitutional monarchy will be.
Mencius says, "Am I argumentative? I cannot help it." Who would
have thought that a man, who cares not for the question of the
form of state like myself and who opposed you--Mr. Yang Tu--
during your first campaign for the change in the form of State--
you were a Republican then--would be opposing you again now that
you are engaged in advocating another change in the form of state?
A change in the form of government is a manifestation of progress
while a change in the status of the State is a sign of revolution.
The path of progress leads to further progress, but the path of
revolution leads to more revolution. This is a fact proved by
theory as well as actual experience. Therefore a man who has any
love for his country, is afraid to mention revolution; and as for
myself I am always opposed to revolution. I am now opposing your
theory of monarchical revolution, just as I once opposed your
theory of republican revolution, in the same spirit, and I am
doing the same duty. My belief is that since the country is now in
a most weakened state, we may yet fail even if we do all we can at
all times to nurse its wound and gather up its scattered strength.
How can any one devote his time and energy to the discussion of a
question of no importance such as the form of state, and so
obstruct the progress of the administration? But this is not all.
The whole country is now stirred up to an excited state and is
wondering how long this ever-changing situation is going to stop.
The loss caused by this state of affairs, though unnoticed, is
incalculable. In the Odes, it is written "Alas! my brethren.
Befriended of the countrymen. No one wants rebellion. What has no
parents?'" Let the critics remember this--let them remember.
Some will say to me that a revolution is an unavoidable thing. Of
all things only the facts cannot be undone. Why then should I
bother myself especially as my last effort fell on deaf ears. This
I realize; but it is not my nature to abandon what is my
conviction. Therefore, although aware of the futility of my words,
I cannot refrain from uttering them all the same. Chu Yuan drowned
himself in the Pilo and Chia Sheng died from his horse. Ask them
why they did these things, they will say they did not know. Once I
wrote a piece of poetry containing the following lines:
"Ten years after you will think of me,
The country is excited. To whom shall I speak?"
I have spoken much in my life, and all my words have become
subjects for meditation ten years after they were uttered. Never,
however, have any of my words attracted the attention of my own
countrymen before a decade has spent itself. Is it a misfortune
for my words or a misfortune to the Country? My hope is that there
will be no occasion for the country to think of my present words
ten years hence.