NYT: China Needs a Confucian Government

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/opini ... f=politics

Op-Ed Contributors
A Confucian Constitution for China
By JIANG QING and DANIEL A. BELL
Published: July 10, 2012

ON Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a speech in Mongolia denouncing Asian governments that seek “to restrict people’s access to ideas and information, to imprison them for expressing their views, to usurp the rights of citizens to choose their leaders.” It was a swipe at China’s authoritarian political system. The view that China should become more democratic is widely held in the West. But framing the debate in terms of democracy versus authoritarianism overlooks better possibilities.

The political future of China is far likelier to be determined by the longstanding Confucian tradition of “humane authority” than by Western-style multiparty elections. After all, democracy is flawed as an ideal. Political legitimacy is based solely on the sovereignty of the people — more specifically, a government that grants power to democratically elected representatives. But there is no compelling reason for a government to have only one source of legitimacy.

Democracy is also flawed in practice. Political choices come down to the desires and interests of the electorate. This leads to two problems. First, the will of the majority may not be moral: it may favor racism, imperialism or fascism. Second, when there is a clash between the short-term interests of the populace and the long-term interests of mankind, as is the case with global warming, the people’s short-term interests become the political priority. As a result, democratically elected governments in America and elsewhere are finding it nearly impossible to implement policies that curb energy usage in the interests of humanity and of future generations.

In China, political Confucians defend an alternative approach: the Way of the Humane Authority. The question of political legitimacy is central to their constitutional thought. Legitimacy is not simply what people think of their rulers; it is the deciding factor in determining whether a ruler has the right to rule. And unlike Western-style democracy, there is more than one source of legitimacy.

According to the Gongyang Zhuan, a commentary on a Confucian classic, political power can be justified through three sources: the legitimacy of heaven (a sacred, transcendent sense of natural morality), the legitimacy of earth (wisdom from history and culture), and the legitimacy of the human (political obedience through popular will).

In ancient times, Humane Authority was implemented by early Chinese monarchs. But changes in historical circumstances now necessitate changes in the form of rule. Today, the will of the people must be given an institutional form that was lacking in the past, though it should be constrained and balanced by institutional arrangements reflecting the other two forms of legitimacy.

In modern China, Humane Authority should be exercised by a tricameral legislature: a House of Exemplary Persons that represents sacred legitimacy; a House of the Nation that represents historical and cultural legitimacy; and a House of the People that represents popular legitimacy.

The leader of the House of Exemplary Persons should be a great scholar. Candidates for membership should be nominated by scholars and examined on their knowledge of the Confucian classics and then assessed through trial periods of progressively greater administrative responsibilities — similar to the examination and recommendation systems used to select scholar-officials in the imperial past. The leader of the House of the Nation should be a direct descendant of Confucius; other members would be selected from descendants of great sages and rulers, along with representatives of China’s major religions. Finally, members of the House of the People should be elected either by popular vote or as heads of occupational groups.

This system would have checks and balances. Each house would deliberate in its own way and not interfere in the affairs of the others. To avoid political gridlock arising from conflicts among the three houses, a bill would be required to pass at least two houses to become law. To protect the primacy of sacred legitimacy in Confucian tradition the House of Exemplary Persons would have a final, exclusive veto, but its power would be constrained by that of the other two houses: for example, if they propose a bill restricting religious freedom, the People and the Nation could oppose it, stopping it from becoming law.

Instead of judging political progress simply by asking whether China is becoming more democratic, Humane Authority provides a more comprehensive and culturally sensitive way of judging its political progress.

Jiang Qing is the founder of the Yangming Confucian Academy in Guiyang, China. He is the author, and Daniel A. Bell is an editor, of the forthcoming book “A Confucian Constitutional Order: How China’s Ancient Past Can Shape Its Political Future.”

I found some of the criticisms of democracy such as lack of long-term planning legitimate but the rest of the op-ed is so silly I can hardly believe that the New York Times would publish such nonsense. I find the idea of actually establishing a legislative house based on passing the exams based on the Confucian classics in particular laughable.

[PainRack]

I find this laughable. How many Chinese youth believe in the Confucian classics anymore?

[Sidewinder]

I've read The Ugly Chinaman, by Bo Yang- someone who suffered under Chiang Kai-shek's Fascist regime. Of all the governmental systems the authors could choose, they picked the one China needed the least- based not on law (Legalism), but on a desire to return to a non-existent "golden age" when humans behaved like saints and angels instead of, well, humans.

By JIANG QING

How ironic that one of the authors' names is near-identical to that of Mao Zedong's wife, one of the infamous Gang of Four- someone who hated Confucianism like a plague.

According to the Gongyang Zhuan, a commentary on a Confucian classic, political power can be justified through three sources: the legitimacy of heaven (a sacred, transcendent sense of natural morality), the legitimacy of earth (wisdom from history and culture), and the legitimacy of the human (political obedience through popular will).

Legitimacy of heaven sounds dangerously close to an argument for theocracy. Considering how the Roman Catholic Church abused its authority- especially in suppressing evidence of child abuse, even sexual abuse- that does not appeal to me.

The leader of the House of Exemplary Persons should be a great scholar. Candidates for membership should be nominated by scholars and examined on their knowledge of the Confucian classics and then assessed through trial periods of progressively greater administrative responsibilities — similar to the examination and recommendation systems used to select scholar-officials in the imperial past. The leader of the House of the Nation should be a direct descendant of Confucius; other members would be selected from descendants of great sages and rulers, along with representatives of China’s major religions.

China needs technocrats, which means members of the House of Exemplary Persons should be examined on their knowledge of economics, physics and chemistry, healthcare and medical procedures, and (in the case of ambassadors and diplomats) the history and cultures of other nations- not on the outdated ideals of a long-dead philosopher. As for the House of the Nation, is this yahoo seriously saying China needs another nobility, complete with hereditary monarch (or whatever the hell the head of the House of the Nation is)?

[Sidewinder]

I find this laughable. How many Chinese youth believe in the Confucian classics anymore?

I attended elementary school in Taiwan. The Confucian classics were mentioned in history classes, but the classics themselves were not taught. The real question is "How many Chinese youth have even read the Confucian classics?"

[PainRack]

I find this laughable. How many Chinese youth believe in the Confucian classics anymore?

I attended elementary school in Taiwan. The Confucian classics were mentioned in history classes, but the classics themselves were not taught. The real question is "How many Chinese youth have even read the Confucian classics?"

Shrugs. Most of the PRC chinese I know here appears to have some smattering of classical literature, although I known the older folks to grumble how classic teachings were suppressed until recently due to the impact of the Cultural Revolution.

Seriously. In a China that's increasingly materialistic, where youths have sold their virginity for Iphones...... somehow, I don't think Confucius reasonates that well with the Chinese people anymore.

Seriously.
This happened.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... edestrians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wang_Yue

There's still youtube videos of that incident...... its shocking scary. And unlike other incidents in history, its........ unbelievable. You're not talking about folks inside their home hearing someone shout for help, you're not talking about it being night, you're talking about people seeing such an incident and just skirting past, and one driver being so oblivious that they drove over her AGAIN.

[Ralin]

The political philosophy expounded on in the Analects is a perfectly good and workable one.

For a feudal monarchy like the Zhou dynasty.

Not so much nowadays.

I'm sure there are some lessons that can be taken from Confucianism as developed later on when China was a full-blown empire, but thinking that it's a good idea to transplant it whole to the modern-day PRC is incredibly stupid.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm just impressed someone managed to write this and get it published in the NYT in 2012.

[Kuja]

I'm just impressed someone managed to write this and get it published in the NYT in 2012.

How so?

[mr friendly guy]

Lets see. Wasn't Confucian thought sexist? Didn't confucian thought focus more on literature ie knowing the classics than actual science. Can you image if the UK had Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins studying English literature instead of science? With China moving up the production value chain, ie producing more expensive goods they need more science knowledge. With the number of workers expected to peak soonish, they need equal opportunity for women, not outdated sexist philosophies.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I found some of the criticisms of democracy such as lack of long-term planning legitimate but the rest of the op-ed is so silly I can hardly believe that the New York Times would publish such nonsense. I find the idea of actually establishing a legislative house based on passing the exams based on the Confucian classics in particular laughable.

I agree. However, I CAN imagine the idea being adopted to fit modernity a bit better. Take for example the House of Exemplary Persons. You can have a system whereby the house is comprised of people in the Intelligentsia, nominated by their professional groups for limited terms. So there can be a block of engineers, a block of physicists, physicians etc. The group of people with technical knowledge that can help the country solve problems.

The House of the Nation could be composed similarly, but with those knowledgeable in the humanities. Historians, religious leaders, philosophers, lawyers etc. These are the people specialized in looking at the historical, cultural, and ethical impacts of a policy.

The House of the People is the democratic one. Beholden to the people, they determine whether or not the society itself Wants a given policy implemented.

The basis of the idea is not outlandishly stupid, just... rustic.

[Ralin]

Didn't confucian thought focus more on literature ie knowing the classics than actual science. Can you image if the UK had Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins studying English literature instead of science?

Well, I still think this is a stupid idea, but it’s not that simple. The imperial exams went something like this:

First off, you had to learn thousands of Chinese characters just to be literate. Substantially more than the number of Chinese characters you need to know to be literate in Chinese today. Then you had to memorize the Confucian canon. Some 400,000 characters worth of writing all together. Then, when you finally got to the exams they would give you four characters from somewhere in the canon. You were expected to write the passage out from memory. Then you had to write an essay on the passage according to rigid rules and in perfect calligraphy. In classical Chinese, which is a literary language that is very different from spoken Chinese and which most Chinese people then and now could not understand. The pass rate was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-2 percent.

Now this may not have been something with a lot of practical applications, and it did come with a heavy emphasis on rote learning, but I think it sounds like a decent way of weeding out stupid people, if nothing else.

[mr friendly guy]

Didn't confucian thought focus more on literature ie knowing the classics than actual science. Can you image if the UK had Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins studying English literature instead of science?

Well, I still think this is a stupid idea, but it’s not that simple. The imperial exams went something like this:

First off, you had to learn thousands of Chinese characters just to be literate. Substantially more than the number of Chinese characters you need to know to be literate in Chinese today. Then you had to memorize the Confucian canon. Some 400,000 characters worth of writing all together. Then, when you finally got to the exams they would give you four characters from somewhere in the canon. You were expected to write the passage out from memory. Then you had to write an essay on the passage according to rigid rules and in perfect calligraphy. In classical Chinese, which is a literary language that is very different from spoken Chinese and which most Chinese people then and now could not understand. The pass rate was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-2 percent.

Now this may not have been something with a lot of practical applications, and it did come with a heavy emphasis on rote learning, but I think it sounds like a decent way of weeding out stupid people, if nothing else.

It may have weeded out stupid or less smart people, but it sounds like it focusses on literature, or at least memorising philosophical rules rather than science.

[Sidewinder]

I live in Los Angeles, and am more familiar with political views the Los Angeles Times promotes, so I ask members from the East Coast: What political views do the New York Times promote? Is it a right-wing, "Christianity will save the world" view, which seems surprisingly similar to what the Confucian scholars are promoting? Left-wing and so idealistic as to be delusional, like Gene Roddenberry?

[Alyrium Denryle]

It may have weeded out stupid or less smart people, but it sounds like it focusses on literature, or at least memorising philosophical rules rather than science.

Well yes, but this was imperial china. One of the longest continually running civilizations and governments ever. When that shit got conquered, it absorbed and converted the conquerors for fuck's sake. Point being, it is not like they had science back in the Han Dynasty

[mr friendly guy]

It may have weeded out stupid or less smart people, but it sounds like it focusses on literature, or at least memorising philosophical rules rather than science.

Well yes, but this was imperial china. One of the longest continually running civilizations and governments ever. When that shit got conquered, it absorbed and converted the conquerors for fuck's sake. Point being, it is not like they had science back in the Han Dynasty

No, but by the time of the Qing dynasty they were well aware of Western advances, and this was waaay before even the Opium wars. While its overly simplistic to say they didn't try to copy some European innovations, I think its fair to say the reformers tended to get shafted more times than not by the traditionalists. Contrast to say, Japan when they discovered the wonders of science and technology. Continuing with Confucian type exams at that stage was folly.

[mr friendly guy]

BTW Alyrium, I am interested if you expand on your statement about "it absorbed and converted the conquerors". Thats a tangent from this thread so I suggest we take it to PMs if you are interested.

[Ralin]

No, but by the time of the Qing dynasty they were well aware of Western advances, and this was waaay before even the Opium wars. While its overly simplistic to say they didn't try to copy some European innovations, I think its fair to say the reformers tended to get shafted more times than not by the traditionalists. Contrast to say, Japan when they discovered the wonders of science and technology. Continuing with Confucian type exams at that stage was folly.

You're missing the point. No one is saying otherwise. Yes they should have changed models; it just makes more sense than you were giving it credit for. And like Alyrium said, it's not as if they had science for most of Chinese history anyway.

[General Mung Beans]

I live in Los Angeles, and am more familiar with political views the Los Angeles Times promotes, so I ask members from the East Coast: What political views do the New York Times promote? Is it a right-wing, "Christianity will save the world" view, which seems surprisingly similar to what the Confucian scholars are promoting? Left-wing and so idealistic as to be delusional, like Gene Roddenberry?

Well its a somewhat liberal/progressive paper, people like Paul Krugman are regulars on the editorial page.

[General Mung Beans]

I found some of the criticisms of democracy such as lack of long-term planning legitimate but the rest of the op-ed is so silly I can hardly believe that the New York Times would publish such nonsense. I find the idea of actually establishing a legislative house based on passing the exams based on the Confucian classics in particular laughable.

I agree. However, I CAN imagine the idea being adopted to fit modernity a bit better. Take for example the House of Exemplary Persons. You can have a system whereby the house is comprised of people in the Intelligentsia, nominated by their professional groups for limited terms. So there can be a block of engineers, a block of physicists, physicians etc. The group of people with technical knowledge that can help the country solve problems.

The House of the Nation could be composed similarly, but with those knowledgeable in the humanities. Historians, religious leaders, philosophers, lawyers etc. These are the people specialized in looking at the historical, cultural, and ethical impacts of a policy.

The House of the People is the democratic one. Beholden to the people, they determine whether or not the society itself Wants a given policy implemented.

The basis of the idea is not outlandishly stupid, just... rustic.

That's a good idea although I'd probably put both the humanities people and the physical scientists in the House of Exemplary Persons and use the House of the Nation as a substitution for lobbyists-ie all special interest groups such as corporations, labour unions, religious groups, and "pressure groups" like say Greenpeace or NRA get represented.

[mr friendly guy]

No, but by the time of the Qing dynasty they were well aware of Western advances, and this was waaay before even the Opium wars. While its overly simplistic to say they didn't try to copy some European innovations, I think its fair to say the reformers tended to get shafted more times than not by the traditionalists. Contrast to say, Japan when they discovered the wonders of science and technology. Continuing with Confucian type exams at that stage was folly.

You're missing the point. No one is saying otherwise. Yes they should have changed models; it just makes more sense than you were giving it credit for. And like Alyrium said, it's not as if they had science for most of Chinese history anyway.

Which point would that be?

1. That it was appropriate for earlier times? I never commented either way on that, only that is inappropriate for modern China and also by extension at least Qing dynasty times when the Chinese were aware of advances Western science had made, ie at least the 18 th century. So it can't be that point. Talking about its benefits in early times is irrelevant to the OP anyway, because they are talking about confucian models being appropriate in the present. So again I find it incredulous I am missing a point which I never disputed which is irrelevant to the OP in the first place.

2. That they should have changed models to one embracing scientific thought? Can't be that because you agreed with it.

3. That early Chinese dynasties didn't have anything approaching the scientific method?
Irrelevant to my point about Confucian thought being inappropriate since at least the 18 th century because by then the Chinese were aware of Western advances.
Irrelevant to my point about Confucian thought being inappropriate for modern China, because well, the Chinese do have science now.

So which point am I supposed to have missed?

[Zixinus]

Only in the West, where the average person was rushed through about an hour's worth of history of China (one of the longest standing civilizations of the world), where Confucianism is viewed as "exotic", where a visit to China is a non-trivial travel, can someone write something as moronic as this.

I am sure that there are plenty of good principles and whatnot to be taken from Confucianism. But to suggest that they should return to an old model completely, one that was followed by a China that eventually was falling apart from god-knows how many famines and civil wars? Only an idiot westerner could suggest this, and I'm a westerner (well ,east european, but you get the idea).

It would be like suggesting to modern France (or any European nation, hell, almost any nation) to return to its feudal form of government!

[Ultonius]

I suppose that Britain's parliament in its current form has some vague similarities to the form of government described in the article. The House of Commons is analogous to the House of the People, while the House of Lords shares some features with the House of Exemplary Persons and the House of the Nation. A number of life peers, both non-partisan 'people's peers' and political 'working peers' were appointed wholly or partly because of their expertise and knowledge in various subjects, making them comparable to the Confucian scholars who would sit in the House of Exemplary Persons, though with a more varied knowledge base. I suppose that the senior Church of England bishops who sit in the House could also be said to represent 'sacred legitimacy'. The remaining hereditary peers are somewhat like the descendants of sages and rulers who would sit in the House of the Nation.

However, I don't think that it would be practical to set up this kind of legislature from scratch, as the article suggests. The House of Lords works because it has existed for centuries, is recognized as an institution of government, and is limited in power relative to the Commons. Setting up the three-house system suggested in the article would involve finding dozens if not hundreds of Confucian scholars and descendants of sages and rulers willing to participate in governing the country, and then convincing the public that they should do so, after decades of Communist government.

[PainRack]

The political philosophy expounded on in the Analects is a perfectly good and workable one.

For a feudal monarchy like the Zhou dynasty.

Not so much nowadays.

I'm sure there are some lessons that can be taken from Confucianism as developed later on when China was a full-blown empire, but thinking that it's a good idea to transplant it whole to the modern-day PRC is incredibly stupid.

Looking at wikipedia, it sounds like he's sounding off from New Confucianism as opposed to the original Confucianist thoughts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Confucianism
You know, the Confucianist thoughts that includes stuff like democracy and elections.

Hell, as it is, the original confucianism has been updated multiple times already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confucianism

Well, I still think this is a stupid idea, but it’s not that simple. The imperial exams went something like this:
.

You're referring to the much older Imperial exams during the Sui and subsequent dynasties. Later exams for military officials included the practical display of skills such as the six arts(Archery, horse riding, calligraphy and etc), as can be derived from the legends of Yue Fei.
Civil officials essays included "some" form of critical thinking, although I'm not sure at what stage this happened in the Imperial exams. Certainly, some of this must had happened because we have known historical incidents of Emperors being impressed by essays discussing Confucian solutions to policy issues, ranging from taxation to others. The Eight Legged essay has been criticised as promoting conservatism, and it does dictate huge tracts of rote learning, but one has to be quite intelligent to know how to memorise the tons of commentaries and shit and develop an extant essay to the question based on the title from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_e ... aminations
To put it simply, the useful part of the Song exams is the huge body of maths, the grasp of history and agriculture, geology of China.

That and for military officials, you know, archery, horse riding and swordsplay is sort of critical basic skills.

One should note that some attempt at introducing science and the like was attempted in the Hundred Days reform during the Qing dynasty, but that was shortcut by court politics.

Similarly, the Qing dynasty examinations had an expanded knowledge base from the older Tang/Song examinations too.

Only in the West, where the average person was rushed through about an hour's worth of history of China (one of the longest standing civilizations of the world), where Confucianism is viewed as "exotic", where a visit to China is a non-trivial travel, can someone write something as moronic as this.

He's chinese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Qing_(Confucian)
And I note that I'm wrong. He's not advocating New Confucianism. He's advocating Consitutional Confucianism. Lol. Now I remember why my brain shut down when watching people watch these confucius debates on tv.

[mr friendly guy]

Only in the West, where the average person was rushed through about an hour's worth of history of China (one of the longest standing civilizations of the world), where Confucianism is viewed as "exotic", where a visit to China is a non-trivial travel, can someone write something as moronic as this.

I am sure that there are plenty of good principles and whatnot to be taken from Confucianism. But to suggest that they should return to an old model completely, one that was followed by a China that eventually was falling apart from god-knows how many famines and civil wars? Only an idiot westerner could suggest this, and I'm a westerner (well ,east european, but you get the idea).

It would be like suggesting to modern France (or any European nation, hell, almost any nation) to return to its feudal form of government!

Are you talking to me, or in reference to the article? Because one of the authors of the article doesn't sound like a Westerner.

[PainRack]

As an example of just how much text a person was supposed to memorise and use in his essay argument.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_of_Filial_Piety

That's 12 major texts and 13 other appendixes.

Classic of Filial Piety
http://ctext.org/xiao-jing

The major text the Analects itself contains 20 chapters.........

This is one of the chapter.
http://ctext.org/analects/tai-bo

Well, people has memorised the Bible, which has more text than this.