Hallo, this is Prof. Bin Song at Washington College. This unit of the course “Ru and Confucianism” will help you understand when is the beginning of Confucianism, or should we say, the beginning of the Ru tradition, and what the earliest democratic political institution in ancient Chinese civilization looks like.

It is an extraordinary task for Ru scholars to talk about the beginning of the tradition. This is because the beginning, as it is described by Ru classics such as the Classic of Documents and discussed by Confucius in the Analects, expresses the ideal of the Ru way of life, and therefore, is more a concept of morality and politics, rather than one of time and history. As one of my favorite ancient Chinese poets, Du Fu (712-770 C.E), mused: the purpose of his poetry-writing is “to help the emperors to become as magnificent as Yao and Shun, and to turn people’s morals and customs back to be that simple and amiable.” (?????, ?????)

As also indicated by Du Fu’s verse, the beginning of the Ru tradition starts from the stories of rulership by the sage-kings, Yao and Shun. The times when these kings lived were respectively called Tang and Yu, and according to the best archeological evidences we can estimate today, we are talking about almost two thousand years before the life of Confucius (551-479 B.C.E).

To consider the time of Yao and Shun as the beginning of the Ru tradition does not mean that there is no notable leader prior to Yao and Shun. Instead, if you read histories such as Si Maqian’s “The Record of the Grand Historian,” you will find an even older lineage of legendary kings in ancient China, such as King Yan, King Huang, and the King of Fu Xi. However, please remember, Confucius himself is also a historian. Among the six classics he compiled to teach his students, there are one grand history and another local history. The grand history is titled as the Classic of Documents (??), and it is opened with the chapters about Yao and Shun.

So, why did Confucius decide to put Yao and Shun at the beginning of the history which matters greatly to the Ru tradition? From Confucius’s discussion on related topics in the Analects, we find two reasons: firstly, the factuality of anything beyond the time of Yao and Shun passed down to Confucius’s purview was hardly to confirm (Analects 3.0). Secondly, which is more important, the personalities and rulership of Yao and Shun represented an ideal of the Ru way of life so that later Ruists can take this ideal as a supreme guidance to evaluate, live through, and contribute to varying regimes, societies and times (Analects 8.19, 15.5). In this sense, the stories of Yao and Shun, together with the one of Duke of Zhou whom we will focus on later, are major resources of Confucius’s thought, and should be studied carefully by students interested in the Ru tradition today.

Understood in this way, the crucial lesson we need to learn about the stories of Yao and Shun is: what kind of ideal of Ruism did they represent? To answer this question, we will focus upon Yao in this episode, and Shun in next one.

Do you still remember the text we once read about the Great Learning? It lays out a very concrete program of self-cultivation and social engagement for a Ru learner, starting from cultivating inner excellences, proceeding through loving and renewing the people, and aiming finally at abiding in the highest good, which is elaborated as peace and harmony throughout the world. Now, let’s read the opening paragraph of the Classic of Documents, and see how extraordinarily these two texts are related:

“Yao was reverential, intelligent, cultured, and thoughtful – naturally and without effort. He was sincerely courteous, and capable of all deference. The bright (influence of these qualities) was felt through the four quarters (of the land), and reached to (heaven) above and (earth) beneath. He made the able and virtuous distinguished, and thence proceeded to the love of (all in) the nine classes of his kindred, who (thus) became harmonious. He (also) regulated and polished the people (of his domain), who all became brightly enlightened. (Finally), he united and harmonized the myriad states; and so the black-haired people were transformed. The result was (universal) concord.” (Adapted from translation of James Legge)

In other words, Yao started to cultivate himself with all needed qualities to live a self-content personal life, and to govern a country well. Then, he was dedicated to aligning his extensive family; finally, he influenced the people beyond his family, and succeeded to unite a myriad of states under the heaven! Because he did this so well, he looked “natural and without effort” while achieving all of these! This effortless achievement was described by later Ruists as embodying the virtue of “non-action” (wu-wei), a sign of the highest moral achievement of a Ruist sage.

If you continue to read these opening chapters of the Classic of Documents, you will find details of Yao’s policies by which he could achieve this effortless good governance. For instances, he appointed able and virtuous talents to varying governmental posts, and set reasonable rules for the promotion of these governmental officials; he cherished the value of education, and established offices to take charge of educating the people, particularly about how to better human relationships within families; he also governed the country primarily through the moral impacts generated by virtuous leadership, elegant music and rites, while secondarily through establishing laws and punishments.

However, although these ways of governance by Yao all represent the Ru ideal to a certain degree, none of them can surpass the influence of the institution called “abdication,” (??) which is about how to transition the supreme political power to the next King.

According to the Classic of Documents, when Yao turned into old, he summoned an assembly of regional leaders to decide how to transition his power to next king. Firstly, these leaders recommend the son of Yao, but Yao denied it because he thought his son was not good enough to be a candidate. Then, all these leaders recommended Gun, a regional leader in an aristocratic family; although Yao did not quite agree with this either, he finally yielded to the majority opinion of the assembly. However, after nine years of probation, Gun failed to prove that he was an ideal candidate mainly because he did not stop the big flood in those years. Then, Yao had to summon the assembly again, and said it can recommend a bright man even if this entails “ to raise a person who is poor and lives remotely.” (?????). Eventually, the assembly recommended Shun, who was a very poor man in the lowest class but became well-known because of his filial conduct within his family. Then, Yao accepted this candidate and started another long period of probation until Shun’s final appointment.

As constructed by contemporary scholars, the procedure of this institution of abdication possibly consists of six steps.

First, leaders from different regions of a country will form an assembly of representatives;
Second, the assembly, together with the incumbent king, will nominate multiple candidates for the future king;
Third, the nominated candidates have a chance to answer raised questions for entering the next step;
Fourth, after the Q&A test, the assembly and the king will decide collectively through a majority vote who will be appointed to different levels and posts of government for a long “probation” period of three to thirteen years per cases we know;
Fifth, at the end of this probation period, the incumbent king will decide whether to accept the candidate as the head of the government;
Sixth, if approved by the king, the candidate will be the head of the government, and when the incumbent king passes away, the head of the government will become the new king. During the tenure of the head of government, the king-elect does not have the power to appoint new officials until the incumbent king passes away.

Given these six steps of abdication, anyone familiar with the imperial history of ancient China will find how distinguishing it is. The later Chinese history is one of dynasty after dynasty, and each dynasty is ruled by a royal family with its distinctive surname. These royal families either overthrew the previous dynasty or unified a disintegrated country through sword and blood. Within a given dynasty, the transition of supreme political power from one emperor to another is largely following the rule of the inheritance by the eldest son, but not without cruel and violent political struggles for it.

In contrast, the institution of abdication prevalent in the time of Yao and Shun succeeded in transitioning power with peace, and the balancing power from the assembly of regional leaders also gives us a glimpse into how the idea of “democracy” is not entirely alien to the minds in the earliest stage of Chinese civilization. More importantly, the willingness of Yao to yield his power to a poor commoner with an entirely different family name from him speaks to one most important Ruist principle of ideal politics: that is “to respect worthies” (??), which means to guarantee that the most able and virtuous people can be appointed to the governmental positions fit for their talents. In the later development of Ruist political philosophy, this “human” element was also thought of as the most important one for good governance within a fixed political institution.

Unfortunately, this earliest democratic institution of abdication does not last long. As you may have noticed, the supreme leader, the king, still held a mighty power in the system, so if his power grows out of balance, it will be easy for him to pass on the power to his son, and thus, end this institution once for all. This was exactly what happened to the successor of Shun, namely, Yu, who passed on his throne to his son, who established a new dynasty called Xia. And starting from Xia, Chinese history waved farewell to the ideal politics of Yao and Shun, and became one of dynastic politics dominated by competing royal families. In this later type of imperial politics, the best Ruist scholars can aspire for is, as Du Fu’s poetry indicated, to help their emperor to return to be like Yao and Shun, but these scholars would never be able to dream to be the emperor themselves. Because of this, the original Ruist principle of “respecting worthies” central to the earliest democratic ideal is also dramatically undermined.

In a contemporary perspective, the most effective political regime we know so far which can achieve peaceful transition of political power is the western type of liberal democracy. However, the reason why liberal democracy can achieve this is based upon multiple institutions supporting its key ideal of government for the people, which include the universal suffrage, the competition among multiple parties, the check-balance among governmental branches, etc. In comparison, the most original form of democracy in ancient Chinese civilization, the abdication, still predominantly relied upon the personal choice of the supreme leader, and although it contained some democratic element, its institution was still very premature regarding its lack of those corresponding supporting systems in contemporary liberal democracy. However, even so, the central idea of “respecting worthies” based upon a system of meritocracy and power balance still sheds a great light upon even those contemporary practices of liberal democracy. Today, what Ruist scholars are particularly concerned is how to incorporate this uniquely Ruist meritocratic and democratic political philosophy into the contemporary practices of liberal democracy so as to perfect it and make it more fit for facing the challenges of human society today. In this regard, I hope the study of the most original democratic idea at the beginning of the Ruist history will bring much inspiration.

References:

Book of Yu ??, translated by James Legge.
???, “?????”, ????????2003??3?, pp.125-150.

Further Recommended Reading:

Sungmoon Kim, “Confucian Constitutionalism: Mencius and Xunzi on Virtue, Ritual, and Royal Transmission,” The Review of Politics, Vol. 73, No.3 (Summer 2011), pp. 371-399.