|
Kang felt that all three elements were equally necessary in providing good rule. He emphasized that “for the people, local self-government is best, whereas for the state, concentrating central powers is best.” Liang Qichao, examining the relationship between self-government and centralization from the viewpoint of political structure, concluded: Centralization and self-government support and nourish each other and are equally necessary before a governmental system can be complete. Like the two wheels of a cart or the two wings of a bird, both are necessary. If we compare the various countries of the world, for the most part the more strength local self-government has, the more solid are the state’s foundations and the more civilized are its people.46 Third, Kang and Liang pointed out that local self-government formed the basis for bringing about popular rights and that the citizenship consciousness of the Chinese needed to be further nurtured in order to expand popular rights. Kang thought that Western nations had become wealthy and strong, “because they all regard the people as the basis of national culture. Since all the people have the right to participate in assemblies and the responsibility to be concerned about their country, they are called citizens.”47 Surveying the general conditions of each country, Kang found that states composed of citizens were strong whereas those without citizens were weak. When those with citizens were defeated they still survived while those without citizens perished. Only China lacked a citizenry. “If China had citizens, our 400 million people would constitute the largest citizenry, and when countries of greater and lesser numbers of citizens are compared, China would certainly be stronger than the Powers. Reforms should therefore begin by establishing a citizenry.” In order to expand popular power, Kang advocated that “provinces, prefectures, counties, and townships all raise citizens, elect assemblies, and hold public discussions.” Liang Qichao confidently stated that the creation of democracy lay in practicing local self-government: “Whether or not there is popular power lies not only in participation in parliamentary politics but even more in practicing local self-government. Where local self-government is strong, popular power will inevitably flourish; otherwise, it will fail. Therefore local self-government is the primary basis of popular power.”48 Fourth, Kang and Liang proceeded with concrete plans to build local self-government. In his “Citizen Self-Government,” Kang compared the local self-government systems of Europe, America, and Japan, concluding that the U.S. system could not be executed in China but that the French, German, British, and Japanese systems somewhat resembled that of traditional China. For China to practice local self-government, therefore, it could “follow traditional local customs and select from the British, German, French, and Japanese systems.” Kang proceeded to determine the duties of local officials and the provisions for provincial, prefectural, and county assemblies. Kang considered that “after starting local self-government, the people will certainly become rich and happy, scholars will certainly become knowledgeable and courageous, and China will no longer be weak.”49 Liang proffered similar suggestions in his mock-official report on constitutional governments of 1905.50 In sum, clearly the formation and development of local self-government ideas in the late Qing chiefly resulted from Western influence. But their ultimate origins lay in the economic development of national capitalism in China and the maturation of the bourgeoisie. The issue of local self-government in the late Qing allowed the display of the opposition of the new bourgeoisie to feudal despotism as they demanded higher social status for themselves and promoted capitalism. Their support for local self-government had a progressive function in opposing monarchical autocracy, raising the people‘s consciousness of political participation, and advancing the reform movement. They formed an important element in the rise of modern democratic political thought. Of course, the weaknesses intrinsic to the national bourgeoisie and in particular to the bourgeois constitutionalists severely limited their plans for local self-government. They thought that China already had local self-government though it lacked the term. They connected local self-government to the expansion of feudal gentry power, even advocating that feudal despotism control and plan for local self-government. This not only undercut the democratic aspects of local self-government but also created obstacles to the progress of the local self-government movement throughout the late Qing. The Control of the Qing Government over Local Self-Government Space limitations prevent us from examining the actual operations of self-government organizations.51 However, the question of the imperial government’s role in the local self-government movement is critical to questions of social and political change as well as to issues of citizenship and participation in government. Most previous studies of local self-government during the late Qing have been from the point of view of the bourgeoisie. In fact, it was also a basic policy of the Qing government to put local self-government into practice. The wide-spread support for local self-government was closely related to the attitudes of the feudal political elites. Understanding the local self-government movement requires a grasp of the local self-government policies of the Qing. Social Conditions in the Late Qing After the mid-Qing, the traditional political structures manifestly began to fall apart, the prestige of the central government declined, the power of regional governors grew, and society at its basic levels was tending to get out of control. Chinese society was in fact disintegrating. There were many reasons for this, but the following two aspects of the problem were critical: First was the social differentiation that occurred within the gentry class and the political awakening of the gentry. As noted above, gentry power was the basis of feudal bureaucratic politics. As social disturbances increased after the Sino-Japanese War, the gentry, who had traditionally ruled the realm with the emperor, began to divide into distinct groups. Although the differentiation of the gentry had just started and a “middle class” was still far from forming, the split with the government was nonetheless deepening. The movements to boycott foreign goods, repudiate the debt, and protect the railroads were basically instigated by the new gentry-merchants. Local gentry especially played a major role in the promotion of local self-government. The differentiation and the awakening of the gentry not only created a critical force pushing for social reform, but even shook the foundations of Qing rule. |