Translated from Chinese by Sherwin Lu (Incl. quotations from classics)

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following abstract provided by the author has said what this editor would like to say about his article --

Abstract

         While it has been a consensus in both Western and Eastern academic circles that constitutional government originated in modern England’s constitutional monarchy, this article proves that it had existed much earlier in ancient China, i.e., in the state of Qi in the Spring and Autumn period over 2600 years ago in the form of constitutional monarchy. What was different in Qi constitutionalism from the modern Western version was that the former was people-oriented, protecting not only individual human rights but also the interests of the state, i.e., shared interests of the whole population; that it restricts not only the monarch’s and the government’s power but also that of the capitalist class; and that it adopted the rule of law and virtue combined, incorporating the principle of selecting the morally worthy and intellectually capable for government positions. That was a most nearly perfect version of constitutionalism in human history, which made it possible for Qi to quickly become the No. 1 superpower, a leading force for one time among the Chinese states in their efforts to maintain peace in that chaotic era.

China’s Constitutional Revolution Two Millennia Ago (I-III): Introduction / Ancient Qi (齐) State

THE TEXT

IV. Qi’s People-Oriented Constitutional Government under Rule of Virtue and Law

         During the dynasties of Yao and Shun, and Xia, Shang, and Zhou, it was people’s political belief that the king was mandated by the Heavenly Emperor to hold absolute power and was thus the center of the state:

         “The king should give publicity to the discourse about the supremacy and sublimity of his power so that the Heavenly Emperor would be pleased, and all officials and common people should comply with it so that they can be blessed with the Son of Heaven [the king]’s splendor. The latter then acts as his subjects’ loving parent so that he can be their king.” (《尚书.洪范》)

         “Only the king is entitled to confer benefits or impose penalties on people and to have good food. But not his subordinates. If the latter do such things, they will endanger families and disrupt the state. If so, officials will deviate from the king’s way and his subjects will become unruly.” (Ibid.)

         Obviously, in the political discourse of those times, the term “people” was used only in the sense of the “common people”, i.e., those who were being ruled, not including the ruling class, that is, not including all human beings on an equal footing.

IV-1. “Being oriented towards people” (“以人为本”): Mankind’s first manifesto of human rights

         The core principle of a feudal monarchy is the monarch’s private ownership of the state or “all under heaven”. Hence the saying during Zhou dynasty “All the land under heaven belongs to the king” (“普天之下莫非王土”). However, this was regarded as unjust by the virtuous and wise statesman Jiang Taigong (姜太公, Qi’s founding father), who foresaw that it would inevitably lead to revolution and the monarch would lose control, and who therefore held that the state should belong to the whole population. Therefore, when King Wen (周文王) of Zhou asked him for advice on their first meeting “How can one win the hearts and minds of all people under heaven?”, he replied:

          “The world under heaven belongs to all people under heaven, not to any single person. Whoever shares benefits with all under heaven will win the world while who does not will lose it. Sharing with all others the fruits from heaven’s four seasons and wealth from the earth is benevolence. Where there is a benevolent government, people will come and join from all over the world.” (《六韬》文韬第一章文师)

        Jiang’s idea, though one step forward from the political belief of previous times, was still the earliest version of people-oriented thought, not touching upon the issue of restricting the monarch’s power, not implying equality between all people before the law; it was not a principle of constitutionalism as opposed to the supremacy of the monarch’s power, but one of benevolence, that is, for the monarch to share social wealth with all people under heaven out of kindheartedness. It was under the influence of Jiang’s idea that King Wu of Zhou (周武王), on inheriting the throne, enfeoffed all the land among vassals, thus establishing a hierarchical feudal society.

        However, because of population increase on the limited land, the feudal system became unsustainable and chaotic when later Duke Huan was on the throne of Qi, in spite of a benevolent government. Confronted the new reality, Guan Zhong further developed Jiang Taigong’s thought and explicitly proposed the idea of taking all people’s common interests as the fundamental concern, or being “people-oriented”:

        “People in the times of Yao (尧) and Shun (舜) were not born reasonable, and those in the times of Jie (桀) and Zhou (桀) not born rebellious. The key to a good or chaotic social order lies with the monarch. Successful imperial undertaking begins with taking people’s interests as the fundamental concern, or being “people-oriented”. If the fundamental is well managed, the state will be stable; if it is neglected, the state will be in danger.” （《管子》霸言第二十三）

        To put his idea into effect, Guan Zhong laid down the principle of “enriching the people” before “managing other state affairs”:

        “The fundamental approach to state administration is to enrich people first. If people are prosperous, it would be easy to manage; if people are poor, it would be difficult to govern. Why? Because if they are rich they would be satisfied with and value their homeplace, and when they are satisfied with and value their homeplace they would be filled with veneration for their king and for the law, thus making it easy to govern; whereas if people are poverty-stricken they would not be pleased with nor cherish their home state, and would tend to be defiant against their ruler and against the law, thus making it hard to manage them. Hence, a well-governed state tends to be wealthy while one in disorder poor. Therefore, who is good at governing necessarily puts people’s prosperity before other state goals.” (《管子》治国第四十八)

        To explicitly declare to “be oriented towards people” was to regard the people, not the monarch, as the state’s focus of attention and as its main constituents. Putting people’s prosperity before everything else meant placing priority on meeting basic human needs, honoring people’s right to a livelihood and guaranteeing them a decent life, in state administration, instead of singling out the monarch’s needs as top priority. In a word, it called for highest respect for people’s rights and, in contrast to the idea of monarch supremacy, amounted to a radical revolution in political thought.

        “Being oriented towards people” (“以人为本”) differed from “being oriented towards the common people or commoners” (民本) in that with the latter “commoners” were “the ruled”, i.e., in lower status, in distinction from the ruling monarch and his officials, who were in higher positions, while with the former “people” meant human beings in general with no demarcation between the rulers and the ruled, i.e., all as equals before the law (to be discussed in further detail later). This was a breakthrough from before in political thought, the first-time revelation of all “human beings” as the foundation of the state, and hence the earliest Declaration of Human Rights.

IV-2. “The people constitute the state” – thus entitled to sovereign rights, while “the king was elected by the people as  their  tutor” – thus entrusted with administrative power

        According to Guan Zhong, in remote antiquity human beings followed the law of the jungle like animals, with the weak falling prey to the strong and the dumb to the smart. Later on, some sagely persons stood out and, with support from the people, abolished such a law and established a different one for civilized living based on moral principles of right and wrong. Then, the people chose such a sage out of their own will to be their leader, who meted out rewards and punishments in line with moral justice and ran the government for them. Thus, with the people’s self-determined approval of his authority as their king, they constituted a state. --

         “In ancient times, there was no demarcation between the monarch as the superordinate and subjects as subordinates, nor matrimony between a man and a woman as husband and wife. People were living a gregarious life like beasts and fighting with each other with the smart cheating the dumb and the strong bullying the weak, leaving the old, the young and the lonely to their fate. Then, some sagely persons stood out to, with support from the people, prohibit such savagery, and then brutal persons were held back.

        “Those sagely persons, because they brought good to the people, removed evils from their life, and corrected their moral characters, were elected by them as their tutors. So, civilized ways of living and moral conducts originated with sagely individuals and, when those guiding principles gradually took root in people’s hearts, they began to mend their ways. With names matched with things and right and wrong distinguished, rewards and punishments began to be administered. When higher and lower positions were differentiated and the people joined together as members of a state, a capital city was built up. Hence, a state can be a state because it is made up of the people, and the king be a king because he is entrusted with the power to administer rewards and punishments.” (《管子》君臣下第三十一)

        “A state can be a state because it is made up of all the people…” – This points out the base of sovereign power, i.e., the whole people.

        “…[those who…] corrected people’s moral characters, were elected by them as their tutors” – The king was first of all a people-elected tutor, entrusted by them with the power to administer rewards and punishments.

        Obviously, Guan Zhong proved from the origin of the state that the monarch’s power should come from the people, not conferred by a divine being.

        While this idea was similar to the modern Western constitutional one that all governments originated from the people, their denotations are not the same: In Western tradition “the people” has been on the one side used as opposed to the monarch, the aristocracy and the officialdom and, on the other, such as in the times of ancient Greece and Rome, as denoting “citizens” only, i.e., excluding all slaves and women, whereas in Guan Zhong’s idea of “orientation towards the people”, the term “people” covered the monarch, the aristocrats and the officials as well as all common people, i.e., all human beings on an equal footing with no exception. So, his conviction in “the whole people as the base of sovereign power” is only in appearance similar to but in essence not totally the same as the Western concept of popular sovereignty.

        Since the people is the base for sovereign power according to Guan Zhong, they should be the top priority, which means “the supremacy of the people”:

        “Never heard of are ancient sage-kings who gained widely recognized high reputation, made great achievements, became prominent in the world and were remembered by later generations not because they had won the hearts and minds of the people; Nor ever heard of are tyrants who lost their territories, endangered their countries, ruined their ancestral temples and sank into oblivion not because they had failed to win the support of the people.

         “Nowadays, all the sovereigns with territories hope to bring about a stable social order, have high prestige in governing, win victories in wars and successfully defend their lands: those with high ambitions wish to unify all under heaven while those with modest ones to dominate over other dukes and princes, but they fail to win people’s hearts and minds, so that smaller setbacks led to defeat in wars and loss of territory while big ones to the sovereign’s death and conquest of his state by others.

        “Hence it is said that people must not be left unattended to because this is the top priority of all under heaven.” (《管子》五辅第十)

        Guan Zhong used a double negative expression to show how highly he regarded “people” as the most important of all concerns in the world.

        To sum up, here are the fundamental principles Guan Zhong virtually proposed for Qi’s constitutional government:

        By “orientation towards the people” and “The people constitute the state” is meant “people as the standard” instead of “monarch as the standard”, or “people (human rights) as the foundation”, i.e., respect for human nature and human rights. In another way of saying, “Human beings are paramount”, which means, instead of the “supremacy of the monarch”, that of the people.

        It is the whole people, not the monarch only, who should be the focus of attention of  the state;

        It is the whole people, not the monarch only, who should hold the sovereign power of the state;

        It is by the whole people, not by any Heavenly or divine beings, that the monarch is entrusted with the power of government;

        It is the whole people, not the monarch only, who should be supreme in rank.

        The view of “people” as the state’s source of origin, focus of attention and top priority, as compared with the earlier recognition that “the world under heaven belongs to all people under heaven”, amounted to a great revolution in political thought, successfully laying a firm foundation for Qi’s constitutional government.

IV-3. Legitimacy of political power in “complying with the people’s aspirations” and “exercising power for the people”

       Since the Monarch’s power should originate in people’s choice and authorization, the legitimacy of holding political power logically lies in complying with the people’s aspirations and exercising the power for their benefits:

       “Government orders are obeyed because they comply with people’s aspirations but would cease to be binding once they go against people’s will.

        “It is because people feel unhappy with toil and distress that we should try to make them happy; because they suffer from poverty that we try to make them better off; because they fear turmoil that we try to maintain a peaceful social order; because people worry about carrying on the family line that we try to help them multiply.

        “As we bring people happiness, they will be glad to endure hard work and distress; as we bring them wealth, they will be able to wade through temporary tough times; as we bring them peace, they will be willing to risk dangers and disasters; as we bring them a flourishing population, they will be ready to give their lives for the state.

       “Mere punishments would not make people flinch; sole reliance on putting to death will not make people submit willingly. If people do not flinch in face of severe punishments, laws and decrees will not be enforceable; If people do not yield in face of slaughter, the monarch will be in danger. Therefore, if we meet with the above four wishes of the people, those who were originally aloof will come close; if we force on them the four abominations listed above, those who were originally close will desert us. Therefore, those who know that benefits given out to people are benefits reaped from them hold the key for good government.” (《管子》牧民第一)

       To comply with people’s aspirations and win their hearts means to respect human rights and meet with human needs incurred by nature. This principle, as a further elaboration of the human rights manifesto stated as “orientation towards the people”, also served as the legal basis for regime legitimacy. It was also the earliest formulation of the golden rule in Chinese politics, i.e., “Whoever wins the hearts of the people wins the world”.

IV-4. Regime legitimacy in good government achievements

       Besides following people’s will, Guan Zhong also included good government achievements as source of regime legitimacy. Without positive achievements, or on the contrary even having incurred social crises and chaos, the regime would lose its legitimacy even if it had the intention of exercising power for the people. In answer to Duke Huan’s question of how to strengthen state power if the monarchs of the neighboring states were all virtuous and wise, he pointed out:

       “Either immediately replace ministers or reform government affairs. Willingness to reform will lead to achievements matching your official rank; eliminating maladministration will inspire the people; and promoting farming will make people prosperous. Follow the change of seasons and proceed with the natural development of all things. Give out lights like the sun and the moon, and engage or leave in good time like wind and rain. Protect the people from above like Heaven, and support them from under like the Earth. By doing so, Your Highness will be the beloved leader of the people. In contrast, to have the pretension to compare oneself to Heaven and Earth without accomplishing the above is not what the Son of Heaven should do.” (《管子》侈靡第三十五)

       How could one keep up a good government record, then?

       “Use the world’s wealth to benefit the world’s people… so that all the people will live a peaceful life. All the means adopted by our ancient sage-kings to win the hearts of the world’s people were highly virtuous because all of them were meant to benefit the people with whatever wealth was available in the world.”（《管子》霸言第二十三）

       Hence, Guan Zhong transformed Zhou’s feudal system of enfeoffment, i.e., sharing all the land with all the people to meet the people’s needs of livelihood, into a market economy with corresponding political-economic institutions to further meet people’s needs by commodity production and exchange, i.e., with more abundant wealth.

       Up till this time, the human “person”, each and every such person in the state with needs for a livelihood and corresponding right, not only the monarch’s interests, was recognized by the society as the ultimate purpose of all social endeavors.

       Guan Zhong’s idea of “benefiting the world’s people with the world’s wealth” was later further developed by Confucius into that of “the whole world as one community” (天下为公) or “Great Harmony” (天下大同). Although U.S. President Lincoln proposed a principle, 2000 years later, of “government of, for and by the people”, which has left great impact on the modern West, however, as in practice all the American Indians and African-Americans were not counted as belonging to “the people”, neither as U.S. nationals or citizens, but were either almost exterminated as a race by mass killing or degraded as slaves, the Western concept of “government of, for and by the people” is in nature opposed to universal human rights and thus essentially different from Guan Zhong’s idea of human rights, as different as the Earth is from Heaven.

       In 1948, when the UN drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the two Chinese scholars, Wu Deyao (吴德耀) and Zhang Pengchun (张彭春) , merged into it Guan Zhong’s idea of government “by, of and for all human persons” and Confucius’  of “whole world as one community”, and, thus, Article One of the Declaration explicitly declares that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”  And Article Two stipulating “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language...” is an affirmation and continuation of Guan Zhong’s idea and a negation of and correction on the U.S. anti-human rights conception as manifested in its theory of constitutionalism and practice of racial discrimination and genocide.

       Though the impact of outstanding traditional Chinese culture on the West and on humanity in general has been largely obscured by Western discourse hegemony, it was however recognized by U.S. Vice-President Wallace when he admitted in 1944:

        “China’s philosophy and the tendency in her national character towards popular government have left significant influence on Western political philosophy. When the U.S. was first founded, some enlightened thinkers advocated revolution and laid the foundations of constitutional government. Their belief and approach, while directly coming through Europe, actually indirectly originated in China. Of this cultural historical relationship few Americans are now aware…. Chinese culture has been the source of inspiration for and one of the driving forces behind the establishment of Western democratic politics.” (A back translation from陈立夫:《中华文化概论》P.112 . 台湾中华书局,  1987.)

       Unfortunately, such advanced thoughts from China have been deliberately neglected and covered up by mainstream Western academia and media, and even Chinese scholars are almost totally ignorant about such great thoughts of Guan Zhong’s.

IV-5. Supremacy of the law and limited authority of the monarch

       Since constitutional government should be people-oriented, without supremacy of the monarch, Guan Zhong thought it necessary to limit the latter’s power, and the only way to do it is by the rule of law as the supreme authority:

       “The law is the supreme rule under heaven.” (《管子》任法第四十五)

       Since the law represents the supreme authority, everybody must abide by it, no matter whether he is the king or a nobleman, or a minister or a lower-ranking official, or a commoner; that is, all are equals before the law:

       “The law cannot but be stuck to all the time, because it is the source of security for social order and stability against chaos and ruin, the highest standard of conduct adopted by a wise monarch for all people under heaven. It is the guideline to be followed by all, the monarch as well as his subjects, high or low, and is thus called ‘the law’.” (Ibid.)

       With the rule of law in force, it is a necessity to clearly define the division of power between the monarch and his ministers:

       “Thus the division of power between the monarch and his ministers is clearly defined, and with this clear division it will be easy to govern. Though the monarch does not have to do administrative work in person, it will do if only he abides by the law.” (《管子》明法第四十六)

       Guan Zhong especially stressed that the monarch must take the lead in observing the law and restraining himself for the legal system to be a success:

       “The monarch must not issue decrees without legal basis.” (《管子》君臣上第三十)

       “Only when prohibitions can restrain the monarch, would government decrees take effect among the people.” (《管子》法法第十六)

       The above means that, though the state belonged to the monarch in name, he was on an equal footing with all other people before the law and had to constrain himself and avoided offending against the law when exercising his power.

       Obviously, the constitutional government implemented by Guan Zhong was meant to restrict the monarch’s power within the limits set by the law. Thus, It was no longer the authority of the monarch but that of the law that became supreme, so that people regarded law-abiding even more sacred a duty than worshipping their ancestors:

       “The law is the standard for all under heaven to resolve doubts and distinguish between right and wrong and, so, is of vital importance to common people’s life. Therefore, a wise monarch is very cautious regarding the law and would never change it for the interests of his relatives or friends or other dignitaries, so that officials would not dare to undermine the rule of law by exploiting their positions of authority and common people would not dare to offend against the law and then seek to avoid punishment through bribery. Thus, the monarch treats the law as even more inviolable than his relatives’ interests; officials take it more seriously to enforce the law than to respect their teachers and seniors; and the common people, well educated in the law, regard it as a duty even more sacred to abide by the law than to worship their ancestors. ” (《管子》禁藏第五十三)

IV-6. Power division and balance between monarch and ministers

       According to Guan Zhong, the first measure necessary for limiting monarch power was to distinctly divide administrative power between the monarch and the prime minister with each party’s role and responsibility well-defined so that they would not interfere with each other:

       “The monarch needs to pay attention to the way how he commands the officials so as not to interfere with matters within the scope of their duties, while the ministers should only handle affairs within the scope of their responsibility, not to meddle in things beyond the call of their duty. If the monarch’s extent of authority is not well defined, his subordinates would be at a loss what to do about his orders; if division of power between different parties is not clear-cut, those who want to follow the law would feel perplexed….If the monarch stays within the scope of his authority while those under him strictly adhere to their duties, observing one another from their respectively high- or low- ranking positions…, then whoever oversteps the bounds would be noticed right away.” (《管子》君臣上第三十)

       While with modern Western constitutional monarchy the parliament is the major legislator, with ancient Qi state it was the monarch who made the law:

       “The monarch makes the universal law while all officials implement it.” (《管子》第法禁十四)

       “It is the monarch who makes the law, the officials who implement it and the people who abide by it. All people, the monarch as well as his ministers and subjects, high and low, noble and humble, should comply with the law with no exception. This is called the great order.” (《管子》任法四十五)

       Obviously it was specially noted in Guanzi that the division of functions between the monarch as the law-maker, the officials as law-enforcers and the common people governed by the law did not mean that the former two parties did not have to abide by the law, leaving only the common people to be bound by it, but on the contrary ALL members of the state were governed by the law with no exception.

       Qi’s constitutional monarchy required that the monarch yield his administrative power. But Duke Huan was not willing to do so at first. Though he appointed Guan Zhong as his prime minister, it was a nominal position only – he would not accept his appointee’s ideas but did whatever he pleased as before, posing as the only master of the state “calling the shots on my own land”.

       How, then, did Guan Zhong achieve the success in limiting and dividing the Duke’s power?

       The historical context of that time, with Qi facing serious crises at home and challenges from abroad, was the basic factor triggering the reform. And the turning point was when the Duke suffered repeated defeats in the aggressive wars against neighboring states, which he had launched in spite of Guan Zhong’s disapproval.

       At first, the Duke refused to concede defeat but tried to save face by attacking the state of Lu (鲁) under the command of Bao Shuya (鲍叔牙) in cooperation with Song (宋) and was defeated again. Then Bao came to be aware of their wrongs in waging wars against their neighbors and suggested to the Duke that he should take Guan Zhong’s advice. And the Duke could not but admit his mistakes and, being convinced of Guan Zhong’s wisdom, addressed him respectfully as Zhong Fu (仲父, “Senior Uncle” or “Junior Father”) and announced at the court:

       “From now on, Zhong Fu will take full charge of all state affairs. If anything, report to Zhong Fu first before reporting to me if necessary. He has the authority to make any decisions which he feels sure about without reporting to me, and is welcome anytime to see me whenever he thinks necessary. ”

       In spite of his authority as the prime minister, however, Guan Zhong, born a commoner, felt inadequate to confront not only Duke Huan the sovereign but also other aristocrats, whom even the Duke did not know how to handle and did not dare to levy taxes on. To carry out the constitutional reform, he had to have the social, political and financial resources matching his position. Therefore, he made requests to the Duke, according to historical records in Han Fei Zi:

       “On being appointed as the prime minister, Guan Zhong said to the Duke of Huan:

       ‘Though Your Highness has put me in such a high position, I am still poor.’

       ‘I will grant you an estate with official salaries for all your three households,’ responded the Duke.

       ‘Even if I am rich, my social status is still very low,’ said Guan Zhong again.

       Then the Duke raised his rank above the two most influential noble families of Gao and Guo.

       But Guan Zhong went on to say, ‘Though I have a distinguished status now, I am still not closely related to you.’

       So, the Duke honored him with the title of ‘Zhong Fu’.

       On hearing of the above story, Confucius commented critically, ‘Guan Zhong went too far in pushing the monarch.’” (《韩非子》外储说左下)

       Maybe Guan Zhong did go a little too far, but it was just because he had insisted on dividing power between the monarch and the prime minister and on securing necessary political, social and financial resources for the latter to outweigh the aristocracy and big capital that the constitutional reform could have been successfully accomplished.

IV-7. Further division of power among ministers for mutual check and balance

       Furthermore, after Qi’s state power was divided between the monarch and the prime minister, one more step was taken to prevent the latter from having absolute control, i.e., to split his power and duty among more ministers. This was brought about by the Duke initiating the following political game of side-taking:

       “Ready to place Guan Zhong in a uniquely distinguished position, Duke Huan announced an order saying ‘I will honor Guan Zhong with the title of Zhong Fu. Those who are for it please stand on the left on entering the door and those against it on the right.’

       “But Dongguo Ya (东郭牙) stood in the middle on entering the door. So the Duke questioned ‘Why aren’t you taking a side as I told you to?’

       “‘Is Guan Zhong intelligent enough to win the world?’ asked Dongguo. The Duke replied ‘Yes.’ ‘Is he courageous and resolute enough to do really great things?’ Dongguo went on to ask and the Duke said ‘Yes’ again.

       “‘Since he is intelligent enough to win the world and courageous and resolute enough to do really great things and now you are about to transfer all the state power onto him and let him govern the state by assuming your majesty and giving free play to his intelligence, does Your Highness not see any danger in it?’

       ‘Well said,’ Duke Huan responded, and then assigned the court’s internal duties to Xi Peng (隰朋) and external affairs to Guan Zhong for mutual restraint.” (《韩非子》外储说左下)

       Obviously the Duke accepted Guan Zhong’s constitutional idea and understood the principle of check and balance of power. Guan Zhong restrained his power of a monarch and he Guan Zong’s of a prime minister. Well knowing this principle, Guan Zhong readily accepted the Duke’s appointment and took the initiative to split the cabinet’s power among five ministers:

       “Xi Peng has a better sense than I of propriety in treating and talking to people in higher or lower positions, so please assign him the post of Protocol Officer. Ning Qi is more capable than I in having wasteland reclaimed for building cities and new farmland opened up to produce more grains to boost the population and realize the full value of land, so please assign him the post of Minister of Agriculture. Wangzi Chengfu is stronger than I in commanding the army on the battlefield, where chariots would be in best combat order and soldiers firmly stand their ground and swiftly charge at the enemy at the beating of war drums, braving death as if going home, so please make him Minister of War.  Bin Xuwu is more competent than I in hearing criminal cases and resolving disputes, not killing or accusing innocent people, so please appoint him as Minister of Justice. Dongguo Ya is more courageous than I in admonishing the monarch without reservation, not afraid of losing wealth and rank or even life for possibly offending the sovereign’s dignity, so please assign him the post of Court Adviser. For any one of the above five I am no match, but I would not yield my position to be replaced by them either: Your Highness needs no more than the five of them to make Qi prosperous and powerful, whereas if Your Highness wishes for all under heaven to submit to Qi, here is Guan Yiwu [Guan Zhong’s given name] at Your Highness’s service.” (《管子》小匡第二十)

       The Duke approved Guan Zhong’s proposal and a cabinet headed by the latter was formed. Thus, while the monarch kept the legislative power, the prime minister held general executive power, with the Minister of Justice having judicial powers, the Court Adviser having the authority to censure or advice the monarch and the government similar to the parliament’s power of impeachment today, the Minister of War holding the military power, the Minister of Agriculture in charge of the state’s economic activities, and the Protocol Officer diplomatic affairs. Obviously, Qi’s power check and balance was not of the present-day Western tripartite model, but one between multiple parties with the major division of power, the legislative and the administrative, between the monarch and the cabinet. In such a structure, the monarch’s, the prime minister’s and all others’ power were effectively restricted and balanced.

(To be continued)