|
Gu Zhun: Greek City-States and the Origin of Its Democracy Hai
WANG About Gu Zhun Gu Zhun is indisputably one of the most profound thinkers and careful observers in modern China. More than twenty years after he passed away, his research is finally revealed to the public. Even now, Gu's genuine and down-to-earth thinking is still considered to be pioneering and invigorating. Like many young Chinese people in the first half of the 20th century, Gu Zhun joined the communist party and became a part of the revolutionary force, which set out to destroy the autocratic institutions that had dominated China for thousands of years and to found a new China on the basis of democracy and science. After the founding of the People's Republic of China, however, Gu witnessed several serious incidents of dogmatism and autocracy. He was puzzled and then stood up uncompromisingly against the revival of the autocratic trend. He says "I also believed in the same ideology. However, when people revert revolutionary idealism to conservative and reactionary autocraticism in the name of revolution, I will unambiguously choose realism and pluralism as guidance and fight this autocraticism to the end" (p. 230).* This is exactly what Gu did until his death. Due to decades of political persecution, Gu Zhun leaves only a few research writings. All these writings reflect Gu's sole intention, that is, to look for the causes of China's failure to achieve a smooth democratic transition. Among these writings, the book Greek City-States is the most representative one. The Origins Of Democracy In Greek City-States More than two thousand years ago, according to Gu Zhun, the Greek city-states represented a completely different social and political system than that of China: its direct democratic system, its citizens (polites), citizen rights and right-consciousness, its unique institutional and military features, its strong defense of independence, its remarkable appreciation of justice and law, and its eminent politicians, artists and scientists. These features distinguish the ancient Greek civilization from the rest of the world. This civilization, therefore, is an exception rather than a standard. Under what kind of circumstances did ancient Greece produce such an unconventional civilization? Gu Zhun leads us back to Greek history. A critical condition for the existence of democracy in ancient Greece, Gu Zhun tells us, was the disappearance of a God-granted ruler. "All races originally went through the primitive collectivization period. Tribe democracy is a common phenomenon in all early civilizations, including China. But why didn't we find the path of [democratic] city-states in our history, nor did Egypt, Israel or India?... The common feature [among China, Egypt, Israel and India] was that we all had a God-granted ruler, a tyrant. He possessed absolute power, and all people were subject to his will. This tyrant originated from tribes' kings, who were also the military chiefs... However, to make the royal position legitimately hereditary, military power alone was not enough. The king had to be spiritually superior as well; that is, the king's power had to be claimed as inherited from God. In China, such tyranny was called 'mandate of heaven'" (p. 83). An autocratic system can stagnate for thousands of years when its internal mechanism and external environment work together to keep the status quo. Hegel calls God-granted ruling "the Eastern despotism." Did the Greek city-states skip the period of tyranny in their history? Gu Zhun observes that this is not the case. Gu finds that Greeks also had their periods of God-granted rulers based on anthropological evidence discovered in the 20th century. Grand palaces, which could have been built only for tyrants, are found at the revealed relics of Mycenae, an ancient Greek kingdom in existence before the age of Greek city-states. Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, which were written around 8th century BC, also describe the heroic God-granted kings, while mentioning little about city-state democracy. The prosperity of the independent Greek city-states began around the 10th century BC, when Dorians, a Hellenic people, invaded Mycenae. This invasion forced a large scale migration of the Mycenaeans to the east, that is, Asia Minor (today's coastal Turkey). The cultural center also shifted to the east. The Aegean civilization, a unique sea-based civilization, was the result of this migration and the origin of the Greek city-states. According to Gu Zhun, the invasion by Dorians was only one of several critical conditions that fostered the growth of city-states. The geographic position of Greece was particularly conducive to the fostering of a sea-based civilization. Greece was a peninsula. Numerous scattered islands linked Greece with Asia Minor and Italy. The migration and expansion started even before the invasion by Dorians. Convenient sea transportation facilitated large scale migration, trade, and more importantly, cultural exchange and influence. In addition, the contemporary international environment was also amicable to immigration. The more advanced Herdi Empire in Asia Minor was in decay, and the empire's internal power struggles kept it from paying much attention to the new immigrants. This gave newly established Greek city-states almost five hundred years to develop. For the purpose of defense and safety, Gu Zhun continues, new immigrants had to live together in a 'polis.' The original meaning of polis was 'a castle.' Gradually it evolved to mean 'a city' when the castle became an independent city-state. Due to economic necessity, trade and handicraft production were rapidly developing and the new immigrants were also exploring more territories. When the Greek mainland was still in a Dark Age, the city-states of Asia Minor had already expanded for hundreds of years. All of the new Greek city-states followed the rules of autarky and self-government. Their political institutions were no longer built on blood ties, but gradually on contracts. In contrast to inland transportation, where a whole family could be packed on a cart, a ship could only take a certain number of people. Difficulties on the sea and the exploration of new land inevitably broke up the already weakened blood relations. Support for the divine right of kings gradually weakened even though the transition to direct democracy still had a long way to go. How was the democracy of the Greek city-states finally formalized? In 7th century BC, according to Gu Zhun, the center of the Greek civilization moved back to the Greek mainland from Asia Minor. The culture and institutions born in Asia Minor started to prosper in the Greek mainland. In the Greek city-states, there was no support for an absolute tyrant. The king was only a member of the aristocracy, and kingship disappeared naturally without the need of revolution. Given the Chinese history and the history of modern democratic movement in the West, it is hard for us to believe that the disappearance of kingship could happen so quietly and peacefully. The quiet demise of kingship was the result of the particular conditions in the Greek city-states as discussed above. The disappearance of royalty was not yet the start of direct democracy, says Gu Zhun. City-states normally needed to go through two more periods before democracy became established: a Dynasteia (aristocratic government) and a short-lived tyranny. "Dynasteia in the city-states was not rule by the people, nor was it ruled by several eminent aristocrats [as happened in the Chinese Chun-Qiu period]. It was a senate system ruled by aristocracy. Dynasteia developed a democratic custom within the aristocratic class and gradually evolved into a system with a comprehensive set of internal rules. They were the origins of law and due process. All in all, Dynasteia was an institutional structure ruled by law" (p. 121). In Dynasteia, law represented the will of the aristocratic class, and the will of the state's ruling class took precedence over the will of an individual ruler. The economic development of the Greek city-states, Gu Zhun continues, made the restructuring of social classes possible. Due to advances in the monetary system and trade, and also due to the lack of labor, the conquered locals in Asia Minor and the common people in Greece mainland became free people and also a potential democratic component that was discontent with the existing political structure. The growth of economy and the aristocratic tyranny aggravated the dissatisfactions felt by non-aristocratic people as well as open-minded aristocrats. These people became the key force assisting the tyrant (a particular type of tyrant - see below) to overthrow the aristocratic government, then to overthrow the tyrant himself, and eventually to found the democratic system. A unique phenomenon occurred in the Greek history: a period of short-lived tyranny always preceded democracy. All of these tyrants did not call themselves kings; they called themselves Archons (governors) or Generals. These tyrants were egoist aristocrats who forcefully overthrew the Dynasteia governments. "Economically depressed and politically powerless surfs and common citizens were the power sources of the tyrant. The tyrants' intention was to gain for themselves. Nevertheless, in order to suppress the aristocrats and strengthen his own position, the tyrant also adopted policies that benefited common citizens and created the necessary conditions for democracy. If the common citizens had been politically mature, they would not have needed such a tyrant and the revolutionary force could directly establish a democratic system. Only under circumstances where there were two antagonist classes, one of which was incapable of maintaining its ruling while the other was still too immature to establish a new political system, was a superior tyrant needed to maintain the social order through force. Between the 7th century BC and the 6th century BC, direct democracy prevailed in the Greek city-states after a tyrannical period. [In ancient Greece,] tyranny was a necessary transitional step from Dynasteia to democracy" (pp. 187-188). Tyranny was highly incompatible with the traditions of the Greek city-states. After the tyrant fulfilled his historical duties, many of the Greek cities overthrew the tyrant and established direct democracy. Due to differences in environment, however, some Greek city-states, such as Sparta, never established direct democracy. Contrasts Between Greek City-States and China In his book, Gu Zhun also compares the Greek city-states with China. According to Gu, the Greek civilization was throughout a sea-based civilization. In a sea-oriented culture, people frequently left their familiar environment and voyaged to unknown territory. This differentiated sea-oriented people from inland nomadic people. Sea-oriented people had to fight against nature rather than against other people. When sea-oriented people arrived at a new coast, the environment was unfamiliar. In order to survive, they needed to build castles to protect themselves and then gradually expanded their territory. Therefore, sea-oriented people were more adventurous and independent, and their social relations were based on mutual and reciprocal contributions. As such, there was no foundation for one-man autocracy. Politically, sea-oriented people were more likely to adopt an aristocratic senate system early on. In contrast, inland civilizations, including that of China, were based on blood ties and tribal traditions where tribal kings figured prominently. Tribal kings explored and annexed their territories and eventually expanded into a large empire or kingdom. As such, inland civilizations embraced despotism more easily. Examples include many European countries in their Medieval Dark Age. The interactions between economic structure and political institutions are also intricate. Gu Zhun thinks that it is a false assumption to say that economic structure determines political institutions. Sometimes, political institutions can also cultivate a new type of economy. For instance, most of the Greek city-states in Asia Minor were originally self-sufficient agricultural states for a long time. It was the political institutions of aristocratic senate and democracy that provided fresh air for the Greek city-states to develop new economies based on handicrafts, monetary system and trade. In another example, Gu Zhun writes, "[c]apitalism [as a new economic structure] was the fruit of Greek-Roman civilization. The Indian, Chinese, Arabian and Orthodox traditions cannot breed capitalism. This is not accidental" (p. 318). Historically, the political institutions in China were associated with law and punishment instead of the law and rights found in the Greek city-states. Gu Zhun continues, "we Chinese know only Qin Shihua, Li Shimin and other tyrants who destroyed old dynasties and obtained the crown. When the kings needed money, they simply collected heavy taxes. Stern laws were implemented to punish tax-evader" (p. 317). In Chinese history, high-ranking officials could be punished and humiliated in front of the public arbitrarily. Individual rights were impossible to protect, and individual creativity was suffocated. However, the capitalist development was closely associated with individual creativity. Without recognizing this fact, we may mistakenly conclude that China had the conditions to develop capitalism even without the western influence. We may think so because historically China seemed to have cities similar to the ones in Medieval Europe and some city dwellers in China could become capitalists. However, we should not forget that European countries inherited the democratic culture, including the culture of law and rights, from the ancient Greek city-states. In contrast, law and rights were simply absent in the Chinese culture. Without certain democratic conditions such as law and rights, capitalism cannot grow. Gu Zhun also notes that, unlike the Greek city-states, there were no transparent class conflicts in Chinese history. A class conflict can act as an important catalyst in democratic transition. In the Greek city-states, aristocratic institutions dominated for hundreds of years but were eventually replaced by democracy. A short-lived despotism served as a buffer period during the transition. The winning class eventually took the power and became the lawgivers. Gaining the right to make laws was the underlying purpose of the class struggle. The identity and characteristics of lawgivers determine the nature and the beneficiaries of political institutions. In Chinese history, in contrast, the tyrant himself occupied one side of the social and political conflict. The tyrant cultivated a bureaucratic class to support his ruling. All people, bureaucrats along with common people, were supposedly equally treated as the children of the emperors. The differences between classes were thus concealed, and the discontent within any class was not visible enough and could not be organized. Severe punishments were utilized to protect the tyrannical order and were implemented by the gigantic bureaucratic system. Furthermore, when a dynasty became too corrupt to be sustained, some bureaucrats led peasants to overthrow the tyrant. However, because none of the social classes were organized enough to provide the social and political basis for a new kind of political institutions, the result of revolution was only to repeat another period of tyranny. Gu Zhun was not able to finish his book before he died. During the period when he wrote the book, he was constantly puzzled by certain defects of direct democracy found in the Greek city-states (cf. Bo Li's article in the first issue of "Perspectives"). Even so, Gu still concludes his analysis of the Greek city-states in a letter to his brother by the following sentence: "I still believe in democracy simply because it can move history forward." * All quotes in this article are from the book, Gu Zhun's Collected Works. Translations, except for special English terms included in Gu Zhun's Collected Works, are done by the author. (The author is an associate at MTL USA.) Reference: 1. Gu Zhun, Gu Zhun's Collected Works, First Edition, Guizhou People's Press, 1994. |