As long as all political systems are hoped to be maintained for a long time, they all need to select meritocrats and abilities, and the difference lies only in which systems are more conducive to the selection and promotion of meritocracy and ability. The picture shows the Confucius Festival ceremony at the Confucius Temple in Nanjing on September 28, 2016. (Visual China/Photo)
(This article was first published in Southern Weekend on June 8, 2017)
"Meritocracy" has been hot lately. But the word that's hotly circulated is a translation of meritocracy — more specifically, from a new work by Daniel Bell (Chinese "Bell" who teaches in China.
As far as we know, the term "meritocracy", first coined by the British scholar Michael Young in defining the rise of a "meritocracy" (1958), has a distinctly "new aristocracy". Since Belltanin wanted to use it as a new political design, he should explain its difference from "aristocracy" and "oligarchy" (not to mention other political systems), rather than hiding the background of meritocracy in Spanish and endorsing it only with "the 'selection and ability' of Confucian politics".
In fact, even if the fundamental principle of Confucian politics is "selection of meritocracy and ability", this endorsement may be of no help: because as long as all political systems are wanted to be maintained for a long time, they all need to choose talents and raise their abilities, and the difference is only in which system is more conducive to the selection and promotion of talents and abilities. Conversely, it is proved that Confucian politics is indeed "opposed to the distribution of political power according to the principle of equality, and only political ability and virtue are subordinate"—according to some people's definitions—which can be regarded as somewhat theoretically challenging; further proof that this is a completely new political arrangement, and that mereocracy is the Confucian polity, or the Confucian polity, the meriocracy, is the great deal.
However, whether the basic principles of Confucian political doctrine can support the new logic of government demanded by meritocracy is first and foremost a question that must be discerned.
Taking Mencius as an example, although he also said that he would make "the wise and the wise enable, and The Junjie reign", and that there was a kind of hope for peaceful rule under the heavens, he could not say that Mencius advocated "meritocracy", let alone the so-called meritocracy: because, from the perspective of the source of power, Mencius, who clearly advocated "heaven and man, so that 'the son of heaven cannot be with the world and man' ("Ten Thousand Chapters"),rather emphasized that power comes from "heaven and the people" or "heavenly people"; and from the perspective of the acquisition of power, Mencius repeatedly emphasized, It must be sought against the "people of the country". Therefore, Mr. Xiao Gongquan (1897-1981), who has always been unforgiving about ancient Chinese autocracy, praised Mencius's "national" theory in his later years after gaining a deeper understanding of the study of the "national" system.
In order not to make "all the people know" an isolated evidence in the eyes of some people (cf. Mencius's "National People" and Natural Rights"), here is another example:
The king regards the subject as a brother and sister, and the subject regards the king as a heart. The king regards his subjects as dogs and horses, and the subjects regard the king as a countryman. The king regards the subject as the earth mustard, and the subject regards the king as the Kou.
The phrase "the king regards the subject as a dog and a horse, and the subject treats the king as a countryman" uses the words "dog and horse" and "countrymen" to speak against each other — the two sentences before and after the words "hands and siblings - the heart" and "grass mustard - Kou Yan" - showing a "equal of ratio" principle: the king treats the subject with "dog and horse", and the subject treats the king with "the countryman". Of course, the dogs and horses here are not playthings, but as forwards and drives, which can be called the extension and auxiliary dogs and horses of the brothers and sisters; and the "Nationals" are not the "passers-by" of popular understanding. That's pretty interesting.
Judging from the existing research, the origin and identity of the "national people" are already clear: they are not nobles or lower-level officials, nor are they relatives of the same clan, but lower-level secretaries and soldiers with land resources and war skills formed in the process of state establishment.
Taking the State of Qi as an example, the source of the "National People" during the period of Guan Zhong's appearance has exceeded the scope of the national capital, including farmers and even "wild people" outside the city. Therefore, in the "Chinese Qi Language", the contemptible people have not yet performed military service, but the record of the "Xiao Kuang" chapter of the "GuanZi" shows that the savages who live in the contempt are also organized into an army like the "nationals". According to the history of the reform of the military system in the Spring and Autumn Period, this is exactly the situation in the middle and late Spring and Autumn Period (see Du Zhengsheng: "Compiling Households and Qimin: The Formation of traditional political and social structures").
From this point back, it is said that Mencius demanded that the monarch have a procedure of "everyone in the country" in the major political events of the country such as entering the sage, deposing the stubborn, and killing people (not to mention, peace, moving the capital, etc.), which is completely close to a referendum. Is this something that the magi can hold? How can we say what meritocracy is?
Further, from the point of view of Mencius, politics not only involves the consent of the people, but also good politics, which is simply a way to make everyone self-perfect: "Dedication to the Heart" gives the ultimate explanation for its "government of kings" with the famous contrast of "the people of the hegemon rejoice in Ruye" and "the king is as good as it is". Although the interpretation of "皞皞如也" and "joyful Yu Ruye" has always been difficult, it is certain that it is not only in the long-term and temporary difference between happiness and entertainment, but also in the clouds below, whether it can make "the people move to the good day without knowing what to do", that is, whether they can achieve self-development and perfection in politics.
Therefore, for Mencius, the government of kings was not only not the ultimate state of politics, but only a preparation for the new politics of the future: it was like a "civilized" school, where indoctrination was placed, where the elite gathered, and everyone wanted to go. However, this is really nothing more than "the rule of one country". Only at best, the guidance of the sparse, reached the world, and the purpose of Mencius's "peaceful rule" was fulfilled. However, this new world is by no means the world of the saints and sages of the past, but the world of people and the people; it is by no means the world of one person, one family, one family, and one religion, but the world of the world, and the public world of "the world is the public".
Those who enshrine meritocracy as a Chinese political tradition, if not a malicious misunderstanding, should also be an incomprehension and distortion of the meaning of the Chinese sages.
(The author is a researcher at the University of Hong Kong)