Heaven hears through the ears of the people, Heaven sees through the eyes of the people

Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang put his foot in his mouth yesterday, suggesting that when democracy is taken "to the extreme, and you have a cultural revolution, for instance, in China. When people take everything into his own hands, then you cannot govern the place."

Excuse me? Sure, when people have a mass revolution, you can't "govern the place," but that has nothing to do with democracy. I can see how a illiterate peasant in rural China might misunderstand the Chinese translation for democracy -- literally, "mastery by the people" -- for mass revolt, but Donald Tsang has no such excuse. A well-trained civil servant under British governance, Mr. Tsang knows exactly what democracy is about -- the orderly rule of the people through laws and procedures. In fact, democracy can be, perhaps unfortunately, all too conservative and anti-change. It is nothing like the quasi-civil war and self-hating chaos of the PRC Cultural Revolution.

Mr. Tsang's comments are revealing, not of his personal thinking, but rather of what he has heard from his colonial rulers in Beijing. Ever since Deng Xiaoping took power, China's leaders have been obsessed -- rightly, perhaps -- with not repeating the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, in particular, the attacks unleased on the Party and government bureaucracy by Mao's Red Guard. Today's leaders came of age under Deng's tutelage and embody those same underlying concerns. Assuming their caution towards democracy is based on some genuine public conern (rather than with a desire to retain the perks of authoritarian power), they fear democracy because they incorrectly believe that it is more likely to lead to the chaos of the Cultural Revolution. (In Hong Kong, opposition democracy is also fueled by tycoons who fear harm to their economic interests. They wouldn't want the people voting for politicians who promised a minimum wage or strengthened labor rights.)

Is China ready to jump tomorrow to a fully democratic system? Given the economic insecurity still present in many parts of China and the unfamiliarity by local government officials with how such a system should work, probably not. Intra-party democracy would be a step forward. But ultimately, China's leaders must set out a roadmap to a constitutional democracy, encompassing constitutional human rights, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, a free press, and elections for the President, the National People's Congress, and provincial and municipal leaders. Otherwise, instability and "taking matters into their own hands" is a far greater risk. As China's many dynasties knew, "the Heaven hears through the ears of the people, Heaven sees through the eyes of the people." (Mencius). And revolution is what you get when you suppress popular sentiment through authoritarian policies. Democracy is the release valve which allows people to vent their dissatisfaction with their leaders. The U.S. has existed as a stable, growing power for almost three hundred years, during which time China saw, depending on how you count, somewhere arguably seven revolutions -- the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Boxer Revolt, Sun Yat-sen's Republican Revolution, the KMT Northern Expedition under Chiang Kaishek, Mao's Communist Revolution, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and arguably the Tiananmen Square protests. So in which system is it more likely for the place to be ungovernable?

Mr. Tsang's comments sad reflections of his inability to stand up for any sense of factual and historical reality. Going forward, he should -- and can -- do better. Hong Kong knows what democracy is, and is ready, tomorrow, to implement it fully, with no cultural revolution required.

Confucian Liberalism

This weekend in the Hong Kong, the pan-democrats are holding a rally. Counter to the rally is a celebration of Confucius by the Hong Kong Confucian Academy. It has been asserted that the celebration has been organized by the so-called “Beijing loyalists” counter to the rally in order to hold up Confucian “harmony” as an alternative to the democrats’ liberalism. Whether this is an accurate characterization of the planning is not important. What matters is the impression that Confucianism can be presented as opposed to democratic liberalism. Any honest reading of the Confucian texts would reveal that, quite simply, it cannot.

The teachings of Confucius and Mencius are constructed around pointed criticism of rulers. Although history turned the tables on Confucius and Mencius when government leaders used their philosophy downward to call for better ministers and ultimately better subjects, the heart of their philosophy is upwards focused –– a call for better leaders to create better government. Moreover, it is a misinterpretation of Confucianism to say that harmony was its highest value. In fact, Confucius talked about humanity 仁 (ren), civility 礼 (li), and justice 义 (yi), and made little mention of harmony 和 (he). A dynamic vision of humanity 仁 (ren) that transformed leaders was the core of Mencian thinking. The Doctrine of the Mean focused more on harmony in its depiction of how sincerity and the middle way will enable humans to transcend their earthly place and form a union with Heaven, 天人合一 (tian ren he yi), but this harmony was not juxtaposed against criticism and free debate. In fact, sincerity was the core characteristic that would grant a person the transformative power to create the union with Heaven, Human, and Earth. Nor were the other Confucian books or even the later Confucian thinkers particularly enamoured with harmony.

The closest Confucianism comes to calling for a “harmonious society” is in Confucius’s descriptions of the five relationships. Confucius sees sensitive human relations as core expressions of humanity (ren) and as keys to leading a fully human life. However, harmony is not necessarily at the core of any of them, and in fact can be contrary to their highest fulfillment. Take values such as respect 孝 (xiao) between parent and child and loyalty 忠 (zhong) between ruler and minister, which seem hierarchical and authoritarian. In fact, the greatest loyalty and respect only can be demonstrated when one has the courage to disagree, perhaps saving a parent or ruler (in the modern day, the public) from a bad decision. Hence the Confucians placed great emphasis on remonstrating the king, which both Confucius and Mencius did, albeit to little avail.

Liberal Confucianism recognizes the core of Confucian thought is a call for better leaders and a better society. It is not the politics of “harmony”, be that good or bad. Nevertheless, Confucian Liberalism recognizes that free speech, accountable government, rule of law, and open elections are universal values that should be seen as continuations of the great Confucian tradition. If Confucius and Mencius were in Hong Kong in 2007, which event would they attend? With little doubt, they would be at the pan-democrat rally.