some thoughts - Constitution Convention for New China

(KH's reply on 29 April, 2008)

Although not a student of American history, I am in awe of the group of men who attended the continental congress and dreamt up the notion and the nation known today as the US. In the last week, I only just realised the US "founding fathers" (sometimes also called the 'Framers' of the Constitution) were mostly in their 30s at the time. Some like Hamilton and Madison were only in the 20s. They were scholars, intellectuals, lawyers or landowners who reluctantly became revolutionaries. It sure sounds like a band of reluctant rebels like in "shui hu zhuan - the water margin". Washington was the military leader, John Adams organized congress and developed the political consensus (also raise the money for the army and navy), Jefferson was the philosopher (he was only 33 when he wrote the Declaration of Independence), Benjamin Franklin was the master diplomat who got France as ally..etc.

Now I am reading "The Federalist Papers" which were a series of editorials written in 1887 by Hamilton (32yrs old), Jay (42yrs) and Madison (33yrs) presenting the arguments for the various aspects of US constitution to counter skeptics. These are very profound commentaries on the constitution by the drafters themselves in which they presented the case for a "union", seperation of powers, powers of taxation, necessity of a standing army etc. We sometimes forget that many things we take for granted today were radical and risky ideas at that time - ideas being promoted these young and reckless social reforming rebels !!

I wonder how much of those ideas will make sense for China when/if a constitutional convention takes place.

My preliminary thoughts on China's constitutional convention are still fragmented ... here are a few.

First, we have a kind of obsession with territory although that is historically unstable. I remember when I was younger (i am sure you have done that too) of looking through the territories of different dynasties and feeling a bit disappointed. My Chinese mentality is bigger territory = better. So except for Han and Yuan dynasty, most of historical territories are within current borders.

Second, I believe China is predominantly a "soft power" trying hard with mixed success at becoming a "hard power". China's soft power is the power of civilization as confined by geography. We can consider writing, culture, philosophy, history, bureaucratic norms, way of life as part of China's soft power arsenal. It is so powerful that even its "enemies" admire and try to copy these qualities.

Third, as a soft power we can also consider Korea, (outer) Mongolia and Vietnam as part of China's historic sphere of territory. Vietnam has been under Chinese power longer than Tibet. There isn't much to seperate Chinese historic influence over Korea as over Manchuria. Compared with Korea, Mongolia and Vietnam, don't you think Xinjiang is actually further removed from mainstream.

Fourthly, an identity works only if it can define the "other-ness" of the other. In the old days, because China is all the known world being "Chinese" is too universal to be as a "national" identity. Whenever China is fragmented into small states. Do those people still agree they are 'China'? I suppose no one really thinks in those terms. They might say they are from XYZ 'kuo' state or subjects of King XYZ or some tribal identity ('zhu') but probably not as "Chinese". So I really wonder if Chinese nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon?

Fifth, it struck me when reading the Federalist Papers, how the writers refer so richly to examples from ancient Rome and Greece. In defining themselves, they based it on their classical history, culture and philosophy. I believe that when China defines itself, it will necessarily draw on its own history and cultural heritage. So my preliminary conclusions now is none the wiser, than to suspect that the definition of Chinese nation lies in the notion of a modern non-Western approach to civilization.

Sixth, for China there are a few traditional strengths to build on. (1) pragmatism not religion and ideology (2) meritocracy as the ideal (3) prizing learning and virtue over force (4) prizing harmony and middle path over any extreme (5) communitarian = concern for the larger-self e.g.family, community, state over self-interest (6) Self-reliance - Chinese don't trust God or government to help them (7) Self-regard - Chinese has this arrogant idea that they are exceptional not just average. (8) Strong cultural DNA i.e. the soft power which is a strong cohesive force.

Each is both a strength and a potential weakness; but the main weakness so far is that these are all "soft power" or individual attributes which does not do much as a political construct. For that, I am still thinking