China’s Legalist Order:  From the Qin to the PRC (1-2): Its origin, doctrine, and earlier years

Before we can consider this question, we must first consider several facts. First, legalism, as detailed in this paper, has been a driving force behind Chinese history for the past two thousand years. This doctrine emphasizes centralized control, weakening the people, and the law. From Mao and the Han Dynasty, one can see that legalism can combine with other doctrines. In Mao’s example, socialism was quite comparable to legalism, with an emphasis on agriculture and control, and in the Han, Confucianism was combined with legalism.[1] However, in both these cases, the doctrines which combined with legalism were very similar to it. If we consider a democratic type of order, legalism does share some similarities, but the differences far outweigh these. First, let us examine the similarities. From this perspective, the dependence on law and order is comparable as the two share a dependence on bureaucracy. In addition, both doctrines attempt to make everyone equal, although for different reasons. However, let us now examine the differences. Legalism doctrine emphasizes a weak people, a centralized leadership under one power ruler, a kind of control comparable to a police state, and ideological control. Meanwhile, democratization means a strong, educated population, control to states/provinces rather than the central government, rights that people have, and freedom of speech, press, the right to bear arms, etc. However, legalists argue against the people having weapons and also against education.[2] Therefore, if we compare the two doctrines in areas such as these, one finds that both doctrines are nearly incompatible with each other. Given the fact that legalism has dominated China politically for the past few thousand years, it is hard to see how it could be abandoned in favor of democracy. 

Although the problem of combining legalism and democracy is present, there are other variables that must be considered. First, democracy as a system is a fundamentally western idea, while legalism is a fundamentally Asian one. Being theorized in Ancient Greece, Democracy is a foreign concept to Asian countries like China. This makes it less likely to be generally accepted by the general population.  While people in the West may focus on the Tiananmen Square Movement as proof that most Chinese want democracy, the reality is that the situation is much less ideal for such an outcome. Most people are content with the current leadership and its style of rule. In addition, the Tiananmen Square Movement was not originally begun to support democracy, rather it seemed to be hijacked for that purpose. Originally it was just a simple protest in honor of a deceased official.[3] Therefore, the people’s want for democracy is not as strong as it may seem. Another problem for democracy in China is the fact that nationalism is becoming stronger and stronger.[4] This means that foreign ideas, such as democracy, will most likely be dismissed and more likely to be attacked, rather than adopted. Today, the government is using this to its advantage against Japan and this is going quite well for the PRC. The recent Olympics, economic growth, and growing influence are also strengthening the national sediment in China.[5] These things will also make it more difficult for democracy to come to China as the Chinese people are proud of being different. With variables like this, it will be difficult for any form of democracy to come to China any time soon.

However, we must still consider the implications of certain problems the CCP faces today. First, is the issue of social unrest. In China, social unrest has been steadily climbing with the amount of incidents increasing.[6] In addition, these instances are becoming better organized as seen in the Chongqing taxi strike.[7]

However, in order to understand this problem, one must consider whether such instances represent the population of China as a whole or select, isolated batches of people. Since the western media has an interest in seeing a democratic China and also due to the media’s habit of demonizing China, it can be concluded that they are far weaker and isolated than many believe them to be. This is mainly due to the incidents being rapidly dealt with force or the demands of the protestors being met. In most circumstances, the demands are met, which is both harmful and beneficial.[8] Since the PRC does not readily use force to put down protests (With the exception of unrest in Xinjiang and some cases in Tibet[9]), this means that the incidents are usually quickly resolved. This action, however, promotes more unrest and, as a result, the number of instances has increased over the years. Still, they are not very radical and this benefits the PRC. Although, they may have to deal with more cases of unrest, it makes the people more content with the current government as they are indeed being heard. As a result, social unrest has not yet become very radical and demands are usually conceded by the PRC. This also means that instances of social unrest will continue to remain only a small problem for the PRC. While historically there have been numerous cases of social unrest leading to rebellions, such as the Yellow Turban Rebellion, which helped bring about the Han Dynasty’s fall, this will most likely not happen anytime in the foreseeable future, especially considering social unrest in ancient China was usually met by force, not persuasion.  However, there is still the problem of Tibet and Xinjiang.

While, social unrest in the heartland of China is under control and proves to be little threat, in Xinjiang and Tibet it is much more problematic. Social unrest in these regions stems from a nationalistic agenda, whose goal is to gain independence from China.[10] This is a demand that the Chinese government does not want to entertain. However, the fact that Taiwan is semi-independent fuels the possibility of success for such a nationalistic idea. As a result, the PRC has relied mainly on force to put them down.[11] Although, some coercion is used in the form of subsidies given to the regions, the most radical members are not thwarted by this. This ultimately means that both regions, although more in the case of Xinjiang, will continue to be unstable and a thorn in the PRC’s side. Although unrest in these regions is more potent, it is also restricted to mainly these regions and therefore is not a legitimate threat to the PRC’s existence.

The way the CCP deals with social unrest also shows the CCP’s legalist slant. Historically, rebellions in China were put down through force and this only served to make the survivors more radical. It also put a strain on the nation’s economy as the wars were costly. When this happened, the state usually did not last much longer than the rebellion itself. This was true in the case of almost every Chinese dynasty. The current government has obviously learned from history as they have not yet made the same mistake (With the exception of Xinjiang). Both cases illustrate the CCP’s pragmatism, which is a legalist trait. In addition, it also shows an overriding concern for stability, which also is legalistic.

So what does social unrest ultimately mean for China? First, it terms of stability, it means very little today. In the future, if they continue to remain unchecked, they may become more destabilizing. However, such instances does make the PRC appear less and less legitimate as many feel the state is not doing enough to stop it, especially nationalistic Han Chinese who serve as the PRC’s base of support.[12] Also, they feel that the state is not doing enough to deal with other problems, such as Taiwan. Over time, this can weaken the PRC as their base grows more and more narrow. In the long-term, this can be a problem.

Although social unrest is one of the most well-known problems in China today, there are others that can be even more destabilizing. First and foremost is a rising nationalistic feeling. With things like the of the 2008 Olympics, China’s growing economic power, and China’s growing influence in Asia, many Chinese feel China had finally stood up and is ready to take its place on the world stage. However, as previously mentioned, many people in China feel the state is not doing enough to take care of the problems China faces and therefore is weaker than is should be.[13] This makes people merely content with the PRC and this can be problematic if something damaging, such as an end to China’s economic boom, a recession or a depression, occurs. Such an event would further undermine people’s trust in the PRC and make it lose nearly all its remaining legitimacy. The result of this would most likely be something much more destabilizing than the problems the PRC faces today. Considering China’s history and the numerous rebellions and revolts, the result of this would be in the form of yet another revolution. In the late eightieth century, France was in an economic depression, with a weak leadership, facing a nationalistic feeling that was new at the time. The result of this was decades of Revolution collimating in the Napoleonic Wars.[14] It is also important to note that France was considered a republic during this time. Now, this is not to say that China would follow the same path as France, but it could face a similar situation. The only thing that stops it in China today is continuing economic growth. However, considering economic laws and the fact that there have been numerous boom and bust cycles, it could only be a matter of time that China’s economy falters. Given that the people in China are only merely content with the PRC and that its legitimacy rests on the economy, this could be devastating. In such a scenario, China could become democratic, but much like the French Republic during the Revolutionary Era, China would be so only in name and it would ultimately conform to nationalistic tendencies. Of course, China does not need to be democratic for such a thing to happen, as any kind of government formed as a result of this would be strongly nationalistic.

Nationalism is not the only potential threat to the PRC. Another threat comes in the form of its old political base. In the Maoist years, employment was guaranteed, people lived stable lives (In the early years), and socialism motivated many people. However, as China leaves these ideals behind, it becomes more and more clear that the PRC is socialist only in name. While, the PRC still kept the political aspect of its rule, which is more legalist, its economic doctrine has almost been completely overturned. This alienates many of those who served as the PRC’s old base, specifically those in the rural areas and the north. The northern regions today suffer from massive unemployment because the very same PRC that they entrusted their state-run factories to have closed them down.[15] Meanwhile, rural areas also suffer from limited options and this alienates farmers as they are forced to go to the city to make money[16]. Since these former political bases are no longer reliable, the PRC has returned to leaning on nationalism. But, as has been discussed above, nationalism has its own potential problems. Therefore, many see this as a double-edged sword.[17]

6 – Conclusion

China, a nation deeply connected with its history, continues to have certain dominating characteristics. This paper examined one such characteristic, in a form of a doctrine, which has stood out amongst all others. This doctrine, legalism, is an authoritarian doctrine that emphasizes centralization and stability at all costs. It is principles such as these that support the idea that legalism is the main reason China has stayed unified and strong into the present day. Considering China’s size and population, this cannot be done benevolently. While the doctrine has undergone many changes throughout the centuries, many of its basic tenants remain the same and they can even be seen within the current regime. In addition, there are few other doctrines that have lasted as long as legalism. From the Qin Dynasty to the People’s Republic of China, and surviving the passing of the dynastic system, legalism has clearly withstood the test of time. Therefore, legalism will continue to determine China’s future as it has for centuries. Democracy, despite the wishful thinking of many people, cannot coexist easily with this doctrine, and China’s future most likely rests in the hands of another legalist order.