The Republic of China: A Republic, not a Democracy, Part II

The Republic of China: A Republic, not a Democracy, Part II
China Post Editorial
Bevin Chu
January 22, 2009

The Republic of China, like these United States of America, was never intended to be a democracy. Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the Father of modern China, like Benjamin Franklin, intended that the nation he bequeathed to posterity would be "A republic, if you can keep it!" The name of the nation Sun founded, after all, is "The Republic of China." This would hardly be worth mentioning were it not for the fact that so many people have forgotten it.

Sun made references to "min quan" i.e., "people rule," i.e., "democracy." But Sun was using "democracy" in the greatly expanded, grossly inaccurate 20th Century sense, as a synonym for republic and an antonym for autocracy.

Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in republican government, not democracy. No one who knows anything about Sun's "San Min Zhu Yi" (Three People's Principles) can have the slightest doubt about this.

Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in indirect as opposed to direct government. Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in structural constraints as safeguards against "democracy," i.e., mob rule.

This should be abundantly clear from the structural constraints Sun incorporated into the Republic of China Constitution, which closely mirror the structural constraints the Founding Fathers incorporated into the American Constitution.

The National Assembly is a good example. The National Assembly was Sun Yat-sen's counterpart to the Electoral College. The National Assembly, like the Electoral College, is a proudly, unabashedly "undemocratic" feature of the Chinese Constitution.

The Control Yuan is another. The Control Yuan represents Sun's attempt not only to emulate the American constitution's checks and balances, but to expand them.

It is no accident that Pan Green Taiwan independence fascists spearheaded the elimination of both the National Assembly and the Control Yuan. The aptly named Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) understands only too well that democratic institutions such as Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, are highly compatible with fascism, whereas republican reverence for  Constitutionalism, Original Intent, and the Rule of Law are insurmountable obstacles to fascism that must be eliminated before the Pan Green camp can implement its fascist agenda.

It is no accident that Pan Blue "Da Zhong Guo" (Greater China) reunificationists spearheaded the successful boycott of Chen Shui-bian's illegal and unconstitutional "Defensive Referendum." Pan Blue reunificationists, after all, are true blue champions of the Republic of China Constitution and the Rule of Law.

George Orwell, in "Politics and the English Language," observed that "The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts... to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration... the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers."

Truer words were never written. What language could be more slovenly than modern political language? What thought could be more foolish than modern political thought?

Terms such as "liberal" and "democracy" once had exact meanings.

The term "liberal" originally meant "an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism." A liberal was a disciple of Adam Smith and John Locke.

Today "liberal" means "an advocate of redistributionist welfare statism." Today a liberal is a disciple of John Maynard Keynes and John Kenneth Galbraith. Today, the term "liberal" means the diametric opposite of what it meant during the Enlightenment. Today bonafide liberals have no choice but to refer to themselves as "classical liberals" or "libertarians."

The term "democracy" originally meant "people rule," or more idiomatically, "rule by the people." A democracy was a form of government that stressed universal suffrage, multiparty elections, and majority rule. Nothing more. The term did not contain any unwarranted positive connotations. It did not imply superiority over other forms of government. It did not imply, a la Neoconservative polemicist Francis Fukuyama, that mankind had arrived at "The End of History" and that democracy was the final stage of political evolution.

Today democracy is defined as the only legitimate form of government. Rejecting democracy is not an option. "Non-democratic" is equated with "undemocratic." "Undemocratic" is equated with "autocratic."

Today "democracy" is no longer a scientific definition. It is a religious catechism, to be invoked in the same breath as motherhood and apple pie. It is a catch-all phrase for "good government," for "enlightened government," for "progressive government," for "social equality and respect for the individual within a community."

To be continued ...