|
It should be clear from the above that these ideas about local self-government in the late Qing were derived from the local self-government systems of the Western capitalist nations and their positive introduction by some of the early reformers. Ever since the Opium War of 1840, a group of landlord reformers, as well as envoys and their followers, continued unceasingly to introduce the local self-government systems of the West. By the 1890s a group of early reformers--in the process of becoming bourgeois instead of landlord intellectuals--emerged out of the statecraft school to criticize China’s bureaucratic political system. They urged that China learn form Western local government systems, establish assemblies, and elect township officials. However, their knowledge and ideas were still extremely limited. Their goal in establishing assemblies was to erase the gap between the ruler and the people or “to unite the high and the low,” and their purpose in electing township officials was to gain the support of the people or stabilize popular sentiment. As Zheng Guanying concluded, “To strengthen the country, nothing is more important than gaining the people‘s support; to gain the people’s support nothing is more important than reaching down to popular sentiment; to reach down to popular sentiment, nothing is more important than establishing assemblies.” His goal was to create “harmony between ruler and people, their amity deep.”15 Obviously this attitude did not transcend the scope of traditional “people as roof” （minben） thought and failed to approach the West‘s parliamentary and self-government systems based on democratic notions. Nurturing Self-Government programs in the Era of the 1898 Reforms The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 had a major impact on modernization. The war forced the government’s “Western affairs self-strengthening movement” to declare bankruptcy, and the national crisis deepened. At the same time, following the preliminary development of national capitalism, the political representatives of the new bourgeoisie began to mount the political stage. They examined the painful lessons of the defeat of the great Chinese Empire by the small Asian country of Japan, determining that the self-strengthening movement would never be able to save the nation from perishing and that the reasons for China‘s weakness lay in the corruption of autocratic government. They therefore advocated that China emulate Western political systems to reform Chinese politics. While offering plans to create a constitutional monarchy, they were also advancing discussion about local government, thus fostering clearer ideas about local self-government reforms. Not long after the Sino-Japanese war had exploded, such early reformers as He Qi and Hu Liyuan presented a more sophisticated explanation of local self-government. In criticizing the basis of traditional bureaucratic politics, they urged that assemblies be established at the provincial, prefectural, and county levels, and that each assembly have sixty members. County assemblymen would be elected from among xiucai, prefectural assemblymen from among juren, and provincial assemblymen from among jinshi. All educated refined males over the age of twenty would be given the “right of suffrage” （gongiu zhi quan）。 He and Hu also outlined the responsibilities of assemblymen and the powers of the assemblies: Assemblymen will apply their knowledge to government, thus helping to solve the problems of the people and nourishing harmony among them. The good of the locality and the preferences of popular sentiment all will be expressed by the assemblymen to the officials. The reforms which officials want should be discussed with the assemblymen, and what the assemblymen want should be discussed with the officials. Everything should be done through the expression of opinion, and after the officials and assemblymen agree, then they can decide on the matter… If agreement cannot be reached on a certain matter, then how many approve and disapprove should be determined and the matter arranged according to the greater part. This is called following the majority. 16 This obviously represents a deeper understanding of local government than anything before the war. He and Hu not only spoke of the “right of suffrage” but they also enlarged the scope of voting participation and urged that proposals be settled by “following the majority,” thus giving local assemblies the right to plan local political affairs. The loss to Japan shocked the court and politically aware literati alike. Such resolute bourgeois reformers as Kang Youwei, Liang Qichao, Tan Sitong, and Yan Fu publicly promoted popular power （or “democracy,” minquan）， urged institutional reform （bianfa）， and created the reform movement of 1898 to change the traditional autocratic system. Their reformist writings included a great many ideas and recommendations on reforming local government. Liang was one of the leaders of the reform movement of 1898. He had been a teacher at the School of Contemporary Affairs （Shiwu xuetang） in Changsha and had founded the Southern Study Society （Nanxuehui） with Hunanese reformers to “promote practical learning, to arouse literal opinion, and to perfect local self-government institutions.”17 In his 1898 essay “What Should Be Done in Hunan,” Liang focused on the growing imperialist threat to partition China and urged that Hunan should accomplish various tasks after it had protected itself and become autonomous. Liang’s proposals included extending popular rights, emphasizing the rights of localities, and cultivating the political capacities of the people. “If we want to reform thoroughly, we need to start with uniting the sentiments of the high and the low, if we want to unite the sentiments of the high and the low, we need to turn to ancient concepts, select Western methods, and emphasize the rights of localities.” Liang argued for two approaches to institutionalize local rights: enlightening the gentry and demarcating their powers. How would the gentry be enlightened? Liang urged that their characters and abilities be cultivated in academies. Every prefecture and county should recommend “gentry and scholars of upright moral character and possessing talent and intelligence” to gather at the Southern Study Society. The Society would establish periods of discussion and academic work. The practicality of all reform proposals would be discussed. “After studying every day and conducting business every day for a year, the Society‘s men will be able to assume most of the assemblymen positions.” How would their powers be demarcated? Liang argued that China should follow the Western model and separate legislative from administrative functions. Assemblymen would have the right to pass laws but not to carry them out, while administrators would have the right to carry them out but not to pass them. In this way, “once the gentry were enlightened and limits set on their power” all of the intelligence and talent in the entire province would be devoted to “seeking to carry out the affairs of the province, to rid the province of harm, and to ward off difficulties that might beset the province so that every problem would have a solution.”18 After the defeat of the reform movement, Liang was all the more concerned with the establishment of local government. Comparing Chinese and Western local institutions, Liang concluded that local self-government systems in the West were uniform. Following the same set pattern, they could ordinarily work together in the same spirit and formed a single system; dispersed into hundreds of pieces, they combined into one body. However, “China is different. Its institutions are incompatible and localities do not share the same interests. Therefore, China is divided, its spirit dissipated, and its strength weakened so that when it tries to protect itself it wastes its strength and gains little.” Liang thus emphasized: “If we seek to strengthen the state, we must start by unifying the strengths of each person in the whole realm to do what he ought to do. Local self-government is thus the natural outcome of the people’s lives.”19 |