|
Citizenship Consciousness and the Political Participation of the New Gentry-Merchants in the Late Qing* According to contemporary theories of political development, certain forms of local autonomy are an important requirement for political modernization.1 In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in China, the newly emerging bourgeoisie formed two movements aiming at political renovation: the revolutionaries and the constitutionalists. Yet both groups shared the goal of transforming the traditional system of autocratic monarchism and turning China onto the road of modern, democratic nations. The bourgeoisie, with the new gentry-merchants at its core, wanted to establish the political system of “local self-government” （difang zizhi） as a way to save the age and transform the system. This was also the first attempt to modernize local government in China. Local self-government in the late Qing possessed two basic characteristics. First, following the corruption of Qing politics and the worsening of the national crisis, the newly emerging bourgeoisie advocated emulating the democratic system of the capitalist nations of the West, reforming the traditional political structure, and striving for Chinese independence and strength. They clearly supported plans for local self-government and strove mightily to put them into practice. The rise of local self-government in the late Qing was therefore a product of the development of national capitalism and a manifestation of the “political attainment” of citizenship consciousness and political participation. Second, owing to the decline of central power and the ossification of the bureaucracy in the late Qing, as well as the disintegration of basic political authority at the local level and the constantly increasing severity of social instability, the feudal ruling class wanted the government to adopt local self-government policies. This way, the feudal forces could strengthen their control over society and stabilize the political base of imperial authority. The local self-government movement of the late Qing was also characterized by local consciousness and influences since it emerged out of the mutual interaction of society and government. This essay explores how the bourgeoisie, with the new gentry-merchants at its core, developed citizenship consciousness and began to participate in politics over the course of the local self-government movement. Intellectual Support for Local Self-Government to 1905 Local Institutions in China and the West “Local self-government” in its contemporary sense is a product of the political culture and historical conditions of Western capitalism. Local self-government in Europe and America originated in the “citizen government” of the classical and medieval eras. Following the rise in the forces of production and the development of the social division of labor in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, commercial cities gradually developed in the territories possessed by the church and feudal lords. For their own survival and development, urban residents began to free themselves from the power struggles of the feudal lords. They formed a new urban organ of self-government--the “commune”--based partly on the old German Markgenossenschaft. They took all sorts of paths toward different degrees of independence and self-government, and some developed to the point of independent city-republics. Although urban self-government in Western Europe was never entirely able to cast off every feudal attribute, the lengthy period of “citizen government” formed the intellectual and organizational basis on which modern local self-government systems could be erected. Capitalism began to expand by the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, following the growth of the commercial economy in Western Europe. The new bourgeoisie steadily mounted the political stage, opening the struggle against autocratic monarchism. In the eighteenth century, owing to the propagation of more democratic thought and the revolution in production, the bourgeoisie of various European nations assumed commanding economic positions and were then able to seek political equality. Their goals were to protect their economic privileges and safeguard the system of local self-government which gave them political rights. After the bourgeoisie gained political control nation-wide, they improved the system of local self-government. With the success of the bourgeois revolution across Western Europe, the principles of the separation of powers resulted in the spread of local assemblies and administrative organs, electoral systems, and local self-government within the scope of constitutional procedures. After 1835 Britain promulgated self-government regulations for various levels of government, dividing the nation into counties, towns, and rural districts, each with its own representative body and administrative organs. Britain thus practiced complete self-government. After the Revolution of 1789, France divided the nation into provinces, departments, counties, and towns, each with its local electoral system. France underwent two political setbacks, but during the Third Republic it steadily promulgated various laws to establish an electoral system and expand self-government authority at every level of local government. Prussia was divided into provinces, counties, and prefectures, and after Germany was unified in 1812 local government was reformed several times to expand the scope of local self-government, establish judicial oversight, and strengthen the political capacity of the people.2 The self-government systems of the Western European nations had an extensive influence on other capitalist nations in Europe and the Americas and on Japan. The local system of the United States was influenced by Britain while that of Japan was influenced by Germany. Japan‘s political tradition was similar to China’s, but the Meiji Restoration of 1868 reformed its political structure. In 1888 it instituted a system of cities, towns, and villages and in 1890 a system of districts, counties, and prefectures. Cities, towns, and villages were given the lowest level of self-government, prefectures a middle level of self-government, and districts and counties the highest level of self-government At every level self-government was divided between the legislative, with a representative body, and the administrative, with an executive body, both elected.3 Still, self-government in Meiji Japan was completely in accord with the spirit of the imperial constitution. It operated under the restrictions and control of the central bureaucrats. “The limits on self-government are determined by the laws, and they cannot do as they will. “4 In China, a long history of feudal-monarchical autocracy as well as a deep tradition of centralization led to the total lack of local self-government in thought and reality. In the late Qing a completely different attitude arose, but, until then, local government during the Qing was marked by two basic features. First localities were obviously subject to the center. Officials at every level were appointed by the court; their duties were vague and overlapping. All important military and governmental plans depended on the emperor‘s will. This concentration of powers not only was extreme during the successive periods of Chinese history but also flourished to an extent rarely found among other nations. Second, local government consisted of the “two-track politics” of officials and gentry acting together. From the capital to the most distant provinces, every single matter was determined by orders from the court to the officials, yet as China’s borders expanded and the population grew, much naturally remained beyond the court‘s purview. Local administration generally stopped at the level of the department and county during the Qing. Basic society at the level below the counties was therefore controlled by gentry, who built a gentry politics outside of the state. This is what the famous sociologist Fei Xiaotong called the “invisible organization” stemming from the bottom toward the top of society.5 This kind of gentry politics grew gradually after the Qin dynasty （221-206 B.C.） to become the system of Township officials（xiangguan）。 |