THE MANDATE OF HEAVEN
O.T. FORD, 2003 FEBRUARY 27
For translation of an unfamiliar word, place the cursor over the word.
For translation of an unfamiliar word, place the cursor over the word.
To advise the 中國 Zhōng Guó government on a course of action is to rewrite ‘Il principe’ for a modern ruling class. The government has problems, if its self-interest is considered; but in the interests of 中國 Zhōng Guó, the government is the problem, the single most important obstacle to the welfare of the peoples of 中國 Zhōng Guó and its empire. The best thing it could do ― the only thing it has any business doing ― is to stand aside.
The mandate of heaven is an imperial concept, and 中國 Zhōng Guó is, and has always been, an empire. The mandate is the legitimacy of pragmatism; it is the divine sanction of the obtaining political reality. The dynasty cannot be said to have lost the mandate of heaven until it loses power. Once it has lost power to a challenger, the Confucian ideological apparatus is used retroactively to justify the coup d’état. The son of heaven is no longer in favor; otherwise he would still be on the throne.
Historians of a hundred years hence will not make the same demarcations that their modern counterparts do. The abdication of 溥儀 Pu Yi in 1912 was indeed the end of a dynasty. But it is often taken as the dramatic end of a system, and this fact is less categorical. Kenneth Lieberthal, for instance, states that, with the end of the 清 Qīng dynasty, “the dynastic idea had well and truly died”. He offers this as an explanation for the failure of 袁世凱 Yuán Shì Kăi to found a new dynasty in 1916. But he admits that 袁 Yuán attempted to rule as emperor; he makes clear that 袁 Yuán, a well-placed retainer, had brought about the end of a dynasty and ruled in its place until his own death ― a very familiar imperial story. And though 中國 Zhōng Guó was to experience turbulence from then until now, it has been ruled for that time almost entirely by four men in succession: 蔣介石 Jéung Gáaih Sek, 毛澤東 Máo Zé Dōng, 鄧小平 Dèng Xiăo Píng, and 江澤民 Jiāng Zé Mín. 蔣 Jéung and 毛 Máo spent considerable effort in attempts to expand and consolidate their rule, as empire builders will do. All four cultivated and wielded autocratic power. And the breadth and longevity of 毛 Máo’s rule would be the envy of any emperor.
An empire at its simplest is a state resulting from the conquest of land or peoples. 中國 Zhōng Guó has historically been both, and certainly is so today. The most expansive definition of a 中國 Zhōng Guó nation would include the 漢 Hàn ethnic group and the speakers of the Sinitic branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family. But language is primarily a spoken form of communication, and this group has, at most, a common written language, ideographic and based on the dominant Sinitic language, 漢語 Hàn Yŭ. So while the 漢 Hàn possess a common history, share strong cultural bonds, and have often been politically united, even they lack elements of unified nationality, including its most important feature, a common spoken language. By all ethnographic measurements, the Tibetans, the Uyğurs, and the Монгол, to name only the most prominent, are distinct nations with their own identities whose proximity to the 漢 Hàn nation has often left them subject to it.* While much of the conquest of 蔣 Jéung and 毛 Máo could be explained as consolidation of historic 中國 Zhōng Guó territories, these were 中國 Zhōng Guó territories by an original conquest.
Since the capture by the People’s Liberation Army of 新疆 Xīn Jiāng in 1949 and Tibet in 1959, the central government has pursued a deliberate policy of colonization and ethnic cleansing to shift the demographic balance of each province in favor of the 漢 Hàn, to weaken any claim for self-determination. The Uyğur to 漢 Hàn ratio in 新疆 Xīn Jiāng, thirteen to one in 1950, was five to four in 1997. The 漢 Hàn presence in Tibet may be smaller and less entrenched, but time may change that: the Монгол, once a majority in Өбүр Монгол, are now outnumbered five to one.
The Tibetans are represented internationally by one of the world’s most respected leaders, Bstan ’Dzin Rgja Mtśo, the ta la’i bla ma, once the temporal ruler of Tibet and still the head of its national religion. The Tibetan cause has been celebrated by human rights groups and celebrities. But the Uyğurs have received very little attention in their own struggle. And as the international language of terrorism has become more vague and inclusive, thanks largely to the post-September 11 pronouncements of George Bush, the مسلم Muslim Uyğurs have found themselves increasingly condemned with القاعدة ’al-Qācidaĥ. 中國 Zhōng Guó has always been forceful in dealing with separatist sentiments, especially in 新疆 Xīn Jiāng; but now it has been granted something of an imprimatur. There have been terrorist and other violent actions by some separatists. But these should be viewed as the direct consequence of the suppression of all other forms of resistance to 漢 Hàn rule. Even the teaching of القرآن ’al-Qur’ān is illegal.
It is in no way certain that the broader 漢 Hàn nationality would be unified under a principle of self-determination. That is perhaps best illustrated by the situation in 臺灣 Tai5 Oan1, which is 98% 漢 Hàn. Within the 漢 Hàn, there is a sharp division between native 臺灣人 Tai5 Oan1 Jin5 and so-called Mainlanders. The former immigrated from southern 福建 Hok1 Kian3 province before the end of the nineteenth century, and speak the southern dialect of 閩 Ban5. The latter immigrated with the 國民黨 Guó Mín Dăng exodus from mainland 中國 Zhōng Guó from 1947 to 1949. There are six native 臺灣人 Tai5 Oan1 Jin5 for every Mainlander; but until the 1980s the Mainlanders held power, maintaining the claim to be the government of all 中國 Zhōng Guó (based on 1946 elections) and refusing to allow native 臺灣人 Tai5 Oan1 Jin5 into the power structure. The ruling party was the 國民黨 Guó Mín Dăng, the language was 北京 Bĕi Jīng 漢語 Hàn Yŭ, and the island was officially the 中華民國 Zhōng Huá Mín Guó. Only in the 1990s did native 臺灣 Tai5 Oan1 culture reassert itself, so that, for instance, 閩南話 Ban5 Lam5 Oa7 became used in broadcast and official business. Only in 2000 did the 國民黨 Guó Mín Dăng lose power, and then only partially; opposition leader 陳水扁 Tan5 Chui2 Pin2 became president, but the 國民黨 Guó Mín Dăng held the legislature.
The two most important population centers in the 中國 Zhōng Guó state besides 北京 Bĕi Jīng are 上海 Z
az6 He5 and the 珠江 Jyù Gòng Delta region (香港 Hèung Góng, 廣州 Gwóng Jàu, 深圳 Sàm Jáhn, and 澳門 Óuh Mūn). Spoken language is the most objective cultural differential; 上海 Z az6 He5 is a 吳 Hu6-speaking region, and the 珠江 Jyù Gòng Delta is a 粵 Yut-speaking region. The 客家人 Hag5 Ga1 Ŋin2, a southern peasant group, speak a northern language, and though prominent in the area of the 江西 Jiāng Xī совет, have traditionally been marginalized among the larger southern 漢 Hàn groups. Their distinctiveness is cited by Lieberthal as a possible reason for their internal cohesion.
But even were the empire devolved so that the centralized state ruled only those who identified as 中國人 Zhōng Guó Rén, there would still be the obvious issue of democratic legitimacy. The only functioning 中國 Zhōng Guó democracy has been in 臺灣 Tai5 Oan1, and then only in the last decade. While democracy is being employed for limited purposes at the local level, the sovereign power in 中國 Zhōng Guó remains vested in a single party and its subsidiaries. Democracy is an issue for the international community, naturally, and though its practice is not consistently demanded or supported, at the least such deviance from principle on the part of democracies carries a price, in internal legitimacy and in the public discourse, especially the discourse obtaining among states in the world. But democracy, if properly defined, is even an issue within 中國 Zhōng Guó, and among the masses.
There is an indigenous movement for liberal electoral democracy in 中國 Zhōng Guó, as represented by elements of the Democracy Wall movement, the 1989 天安門 Tiān Ān Mén square protests, and the practicing democracy of 香港 Hèung Góng. There is also a broader desire for autonomy and self-determination among 中國 Zhōng Guó’s individuals, economically, spiritually, and in other ways. The response to economic liberalization, among peasants and urban workers alike, among the well-educated and the comparatively uneducated, shows that the power ― and the benefits ― of economic autonomy are well-received. This is seen in the numbers of workers who take private-sector jobs, the advantage taken by peasants of private-farming opportunities, and in the enthusiastic adoption of Western consumer culture by those now in a position to afford it. Beyond economics, the numerical and organizational strength, and the willingness to defy the system, present in 法輪功 Fă Lún Gōng demonstrate a strong desire among some 中國人 Zhōng Guó Rén for freedom of belief. This is, quite correctly, viewed by the 中國共產黨 Zhōng Guó Gòng Chăn Dăng as a political threat as much as anything else. Freedom of belief is taken as incompatible with continued 中共 Zhōng Gòng rule, and that is also quite correct. Thus for both the party and the 法輪功 Fă Lún Gōng, the confrontation becomes a direct challenge to the claim by the party of a right to rule.
Without democratization, the state will be marked with the most obvious flaw from an international perspective. But the economic liberalization has been a further source of illegitimacy in the eyes of 中國 Zhōng Guó subjects. Hugo Restall, considering peasant discontent in 江西 Jiāng Xī, notes himself that 毛 Máo’s faction of the 中國共產黨 Zhōng Guó Gòng Chăn Dăng had its early success in the same countryside where twenty thousand farmers rioted against the system in 2000 August, and for much the same reason. The system has ever been a weight on the farmer tilling the land ― there is always some parasite living well at the expense of the toiling peasant. Organizing in this reality shaped the early policies of 毛 Máo, and led to his triumph in the 長征 Cháng Zhēng, when his success was compared to the failure of the 中共 Zhōng Gòng’s urban-oriented cadres in 上海 Z
az6 He5 and other cities. But he eventually abandoned the pro-peasant policies in favor of collectivization and industrialization, relying on the countryside not only to feed the cities but also to help fuel the country’s rapid advancement into the industrial age.
Now the problem can be expressed as a set of bloated local bureaucracies taxing the produce of the countryside. That is a causal similarity to times past. There is also a similarity of results, if for different reasons. The urban focus of the introduction of capitalism ― liberalizing Special Economic Zones and populous eastern cities ― and the attendant focus of its benefits, conveniently meshes with the peasant suspicion that the city eats at the expense of the country. 中國 Zhōng Guó peasants are not unaware of the differences in lifestyle and opportunities for those in the cities. The presence of one or two hundred million floating workers in the cities, rural populations displaced to the cities in pursuit of what is not available in the rural areas, demonstrates the perception, and in some cases the harsh reality. While some may be pursuing an opulent life of consumption, some are pursuing simple survival.
Why should peasants be dissatisfied? For those whose lives are not tolerable, the answer is obvious. For those whose lives are an improvement over the lot of their predecessors, the answer lies in their relative status, relative not only to their urban counterparts, but relative also to the hypothetical standard of living that would exist without the parasitic class of rulers.
And it would be wrong to suppose that discontent of peasants with taxes is limited solely to the issue of economics. Many, even among the peasants, could articulate a desire for something approaching democracy, for the ability to govern their own lives and not to be governed by others, particularly others so unconnected with them. For many peasants, those others are not merely easterners or northerners, but conquerors and colonists of a recognizably-different nation, with a different history, language, religion, and aspirations.
But even where the comparison is between 漢語 Hàn Yŭ-speaking, secular peasants in 山東 Shān Dōng, and educated Uyğur professionals in Ürümqi, the commonality is the recognition that the state is an imposition, that someone else is dictating to them the course of their lives, the future of themselves and those they care about. Their actions, whether a tax riot, a faxed manifesto, the donning of Western symbols, the bombing of 漢 Hàn commercial and government interests, or the defection from a program of exchange study, are a response to and an expression of the broader question of dominion, of the presumption by some that they shall decide for all. The 中國共產黨 Zhōng Guó Gòng Chăn Dăng comes from the Ленинist vanguard tradition, where those who “know better” guide the transformation and then the government of society according to truths and principles. When claims of truth and principle become a cloak for the naked pursuit of power and indulgent self-interest, truth and principle themselves become discredited. The party, the latest form of the imperial régime, claims to know, and it claims to have the interest of the people in mind. This is not only not the case, it is evidently not the case, evident to the subjects of the empire. As the subjects respond to the differences between the way they live and the way others, especially their masters, live, they respond simultaneously to the differences between reality and propaganda, between what they see in their own lives, and the lies their masters tell them.
* Historians of 中國 Zhōng Guó are correct to include the 元 Yuán or Монгол dynasty in the succession; for the Монгол emperors ruled 中國 Zhōng Guó through 中國 Zhōng Guó, so to speak; through the state structures, bureaucracy, and 孔子的 Kŏng Zi de rationalization that preceding dynasties had developed. The 清 Qīng or Manču dynasty is the same, of course; the 清 Qīng and 元 Yuán were enveloped within 中國 Zhōng Guó as Сталин was within Россия, and were overshadowed by their subjects’ culture as the ROMANI were that of the ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ.
Mary Jean Chan, ‘Floating populations’. Harvard International Review, 1995 Fall.
The Economist, Special Section on China. 2000 April 8. In Ogden, p104-18.
Thomas L. Friedman, ‘The Lexus and the olive tree: understanding globalization’. Anchor 2000.
Nader Hasan, ‘China’s forgotten dissenters: the long fuse of Xinjiang’. Harvard International Review, 2000 Fall. In Ogden.
Stefano Hatfield, ‘China may prove to be source of optimism in global gloom’. Advertising Age, 2001 November 26.
Charles N. Li and Sandra A. Thompson, ‘Chinese’, in Bernard Comrie, ed., ‘The world’s major languages’, p811-33. Oxford University Press 1990.
Kenneth Lieberthal, ‘Governing China: from revolution through reform’. W.W. Norton 1995.
Richard Madsen, ‘Understanding Falun Gong’. Current History, 2000 September. In Ogden.
Suzanne Ogden, ‘Global studies: China’, ninth edition. McGraw-Hill/Dushkin 2002.
John Pomfret, ‘China’s manifest destiny in Tibet’. Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 1999 November 8. In Ogden.
Hugo Restall, ‘Examining Asia: China’s farmers learn their rights’. The Asian Wall Street Journal, 2000 November 22.
Sidney Tarrow, ‘Power in movement: social movements and contentious politics’, second edition. Cambridge University Press 1998.