  |
 |
|
|
||
|
Democratic Authoritarianism Liang Qichao himself uses both sides of the argument. In the last years of the Qing (or Manchu) dynasty, which lasted until 1911, Liang and his colleagues were arguing for a constitutional monarchy. Then the argument to the imperial court was something like this: "Give more room to the people. Have assemblies. Allow newspapers to be licensed. Let people have a little more leeway because you, as a regime, will benefit." That is the liberal side of this argument. But in a period like the 1930s, when the Qing dynasty is gone and a nationalist regime, the Kuomintang, is in power, and there are famines, floods, and a Japanese invasion—then society is in trouble. Then the regime uses an argument like this: "Give me more power. I want to be a military authoritarian regime, but this will be in the interests of the population." Either way, you can call it a democracy. In twentieth-century Chinese history you will not find any regime, except one, that didn't say it was democratic. The exception was the restoration of the imperial regime in Beijing, and that lasted lasted only a few days. Almost all politicians in modern China have wanted to be democratic, but the implications of this are either liberal (more power to society and individuals) or authoritarian. |
|
 |
|