End of semester business (papers to grade, theses to read, meetings to attend, etc.) has stolen me away from blogging of late.  I'll try to catch up as time allows (my last class meets this afternoon!).  One of the things that slipped by in the past few days, and which should be noted here, was the op-ed by Daniel Bell in the NYT on Monday, The Confucian Party.

The content of the piece will be familiar to those who know Daniel's recent works, especially his book, China's New Confucianism.  He is, safe to say, one of the leading chroniclers of the revival and revision of Confucianism in China today. 

Let me focus on this passage from the op-ed:

Should liberals be worried? In one important sense, no. Confucian
scholars — many of whom are party members — favor a more open
ideological atmosphere where new ideas for political and educational
reform can be debated and criticized.

They point out that
China’s most fertile intellectual period was the Warring States era
(476 to 221 B.C.) , when scholars like Mencius could openly criticize
rulers for their immoral deeds and put forward political alternatives. My Confucian friends have criticized the government’s clumsy attempts
to shut down debate about Charter 08, a manifesto published in 2008
which urged the Communist Party to abandon monopoly rule and establish
a multiparty system of government.

Of course, the power of the party-state continues to shape public discourse in the PRC.  While certain kinds of criticisms are possible in private or very restricted public forums, it is difficult for those interested in exploring the possibilities for dialogue between Western liberalism and Confucian ideas to follow ideas wherever they may lead.  And there are interesting possibilities there.

Let's go to Mencius.  In chapter 9 (5A) he points out that political legitimacy, defined in terms of the mandate of heaven, cannot be passed from one person to another.  It is a matter of heaven, not power-holders.  And how can we know heaven's disposition?  The people tell us.  Passage 9.5 (5A.5) has a rudimentary notion of popular consent.  Here are some key excerpts:

"Yao recommended Shun to Heaven, and Heaven accepted him," repeated Wan Chang.  "And Yao presented Shun to the people, and the people accepted him.  But how did all this take place?"

"When he put Shun in charge of the sacrifices, the spirits welcomed him.  This is how Heaven accepted him.  When he put Shun in charge of the nation's affairs, they were well ordered and the people were at peace.  This is how the people accepted him.  so Heaven gave it to him, and the people gave it to him.  This is what I mean when I say the Son of Heaven cannot give all beneath Heaven to another."

Of course, in the time of Mencius there were no elections.  Thus, the will of the people was expressed in their actions: if there was "peace" (i.e. no protests or uprisings) the people were accepting of the ruler, and that was taken as a sign from heaven of the regime's political legitimacy.  If the people were actively demonstrating against the ruler ("the peasants are revolting"…), then the ruler may have lost the mandate of heaven.  Yet even if there is no reference to elections here, it is also true that electoral expressions of popular will, and thus political legitimacy, could be consistent with Mencian principles, as East Asian democrats, like Kim Dae Jong of Korea, have argued. 

Indeed, this line from passage 9.5 opens the door to all sorts of democratic possibilities:

Heaven sees through the eyes of the people.  Heave hears through the ears of the people.

So why not let the people express what they see and hear through their political participation?

The political question, then, becomes: who among the contemporary Chinese Confucianists is thinking of these interpretive possibilities?