Helmsman Ruler

Chapter 1 Helmsman, not Philosopher Three common features are discernible in the following groups hailing from different times. Firstly, the top leadership positions were handed over to persons without kinship to their predecessors. Secondly, the successors were openly recruited, trained, promoted, and finally selected on the basis of merit. Thirdly, all these successions took place on the soil of China. [1] Rulers of the People’s Republic of China 1989-2013 Jiang Ze-min 江澤民 and Zhu Rong-ji 朱鎔基 >>>>>> Hu Jin-tao 胡錦濤 and Wen Jia-bao 溫家寶 >>>>>> Xi Jin-ping 習近平 and Li Ke-qiang 李克強 [2] Chief Managers of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation 1953-1977 William Turner >>>>>> John Saunders >>>>>> Guy Sayer (King 1991: p924-5) [3] Chiefs (or translated as Emperors) in ancient China around 2333-2184BC Yao 堯 >>>>>> Shun 舜 >>>>>> Yǔ 禹 These peaceful handovers of authority are coincidentally in line with Plato’s ideal model of succession of political leaders. Plato (427-347BC) describes through Socrates as the narrator in The Republic how his Philosopher Rulers come to power: “…those who have come through all our practical and intellectual tests with distinction must be brought to their final trial … and when their turn comes they will, in rotation, turn to the weary business of politics and … do their duty as Rulers … And so, when they have brought up successors like themselves to take their place as Guardians, they will depart to the islands of the blest …” < 540a-b="">> (author’s emphasis). From Plato to China Plato regards timocracy (Spartan military aristocracy), oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny as forms of government inferior to his ideal state. Through analogies as the “Allegory of the Cave” <514a-521b>> and the “Ship of State” metaphor <488a-489d>> he illustrates the benefits of a society governed by its best philosophically educated wise men rather than by the uneducated and ignorant. In particular, the “Ship of State” metaphor compares the state to a ship in need of navigation but with only one captain, and many sailors who have never learnt “the art of navigation” all vying for control. One can imagine that Plato considers democracy to be far from perfect, and his criticism of democracy may even sound prejudiced in light of the reinvention of democracy in the Age of Enlightenment with such concepts as “Freedom of Speech”, “Social Contract”, and “Separation of Power among the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary” to legally protect the weak, minorities, and dissenters. Karl Popper (1902-94) even argues that Plato's thoughts are the source of totalitarianism, elitist tyranny, and racialism (1945I). Yet Plato's criticism of democracy is certainly not without basis – it can be understood in the context of a 1962 film (and Harper Lee’s novel from which the film is adapted). To Kill a Mockingbird, based on real events from the author's childhood, revolves around the trial of an innocent black man, Tom Robinson, who is wrongly accused by a white woman of rape. Atticus Finch (played by Gregory Peck in the film) is the white lawyer determined to safeguard Robinson's civil right to a fair trial, even to the point of personally facing a mob intent on lynching Robinson, who is held in custody. Eventually, even though Finch proves the evidence to be inconsistent and the witnesses to be unreliable, Robinson is found guilty simply because the jury is composed entirely of white people who are racially prejudiced against blacks. This story parallels the trial of Socrates, which might partially explain Plato’s disapproval of democracy. This “tyranny of the majority” (Russell 1917: p45), which describes a situation whereby individuals or minorities are oppressed under or even directly by the rule of law, has been a frequent criticism of democracy. This argument is valid even where there is no cultural prejudice: an argument presented in Gorgias, another of Plato’s dialogues, suggests that a skilled orator can be more convincing than a doctor on matters of health to an unknowledgeable audience (Gorgias <459a-e> in Plato 1960: p22-4), thus spreading prejudice or opinions based on misinformation even where there may be no grounds at all. This would have been true of ancient societies, where education was not common (in terms of student numbers) and not sophisticated (in terms of quality and coverage of curriculum). It would not have been unexpected for many people to be relatively ‘ignorant’, with only a few being ‘knowledgeable’. In such an environment, it is not difficult to understand Plato's skepticism about the value of direct democracy (which can be found in <557a-561e>>); but in the post-Enlightenment world, the modern value-added representative democracy has become the most attractive political system to the Western countries. All the above arguments against democracy aside, perhaps one of the best arguments in favor of modern democracy is the peaceful handover of government authority “without bloodshed” (Popper 1945I: p124). Indeed, in non-democratic states, violent power struggles and bloody coups are common occurrences. Nevertheless, somewhere and sometime, a non-democratic but peaceful handover of authority to a person of ability rather than to a kinsman did take place. In ancient China, when the main clans were living around the Yellow River, Yao (堯) was the chief (or emperor, as alternatively translated) of all the tribes around 2200BC. He was widely respected as a sagacious and righteous leader. When Yao was getting old, he wanted to pass the throne to a man of high caliber instead of one of his sons. He picked an ordinary citizen Shun (舜) for his reputation of propriety and filial piety to his father and stepmother, and gave him different administrative assignments as a test of his abilities. After being assessed for three years, Shun gained Yao’s appreciation and trust, and Yao eventually chose Shun to succeed him.