The rule of law. This is made to sound like a Western (European) concept, a concept that is unique to free democracies as modeled on Western thought. But laws have existed for millennia. The rule of law is not unique to the West.
What differs is the concept of law. Here, I will use two broad opposites, the East and the West, to give a broad overview of the differences. East is the sphere of influence that imperial China had, covering mainly East Asia and where Confucianism had heavy cultural influences. West is mainly Europe and parts of the Mediterranean that have developed with heavy influence from monotheistic religions.
My ideas are probably not new. They stem from what I have read, like Ruth Benedict's The Sword and the Chrysanthemum, and works by Wang Gungwu. Concepts like shame vs sin, and how China sees the rule of law.
First, the West. Law is sacrosanct because laws are ultimately derived from the covenant between man and God. The most basic of laws, the moral and ethical code, has a divine origin. This is then further codified by man into a more detailed set of laws, but they ultimately draw legitimacy from the divine, from something greater than man. It is about sin and how sin keeps people's actions in check even when no one else is looking, because God is always looking. Laws are therefore something to be held in high regard and strict adherence, since the first laws were cast in stone.
Contrast that with the East, where moral and ethical codes were not passed down in stone from a divine being, but come from various great philosophers like Confucius and Laozi who have their own preachings about how people should live. There was also the contest in ancient Chinese schools of thought between governing through moral codes versus governing through written ones. In the end, the Chinese arrived at governing using both. Moral codes and written laws are used to shape people's behaviors, but both are man-made. Man came up with them, and man can and do change them to suit the times.
In the West, the respect for the law has divine roots. In the East, the respect for the law varies with the power wielded by those who enforce the law.
When viewed through such a lens, China's actions whenever it challenges the existing international system may seem to Western eyes like a disrespect for the rule of law. But when viewed from an Eastern perspective, China is not disrespecting the rule of law; rather, it is challenging the appropriateness of the current set of laws. To China, laws are man-made, and they can and should be changed according to the times and circumstances. Since a set of laws is respected and observed only when there is some authority willing to enforce and uphold those laws, China is also challenging the will of nations to enforce and uphold the current international system.
If so, the key to getting China to keep within our current system is to show commitment toward enforcing and upholding what we have. But this also means we have to relook at our current system, and ask ourselves, "What are we willing to defend? What are we ready to change?" Because we can try to hang onto old and obsolete rules, but it is going to be hard to convince people to defend them. When our systems are always in line with the times, people will feel more willing to enforce, defend, and uphold them.
What differs is the concept of law. Here, I will use two broad opposites, the East and the West, to give a broad overview of the differences. East is the sphere of influence that imperial China had, covering mainly East Asia and where Confucianism had heavy cultural influences. West is mainly Europe and parts of the Mediterranean that have developed with heavy influence from monotheistic religions.
My ideas are probably not new. They stem from what I have read, like Ruth Benedict's The Sword and the Chrysanthemum, and works by Wang Gungwu. Concepts like shame vs sin, and how China sees the rule of law.
First, the West. Law is sacrosanct because laws are ultimately derived from the covenant between man and God. The most basic of laws, the moral and ethical code, has a divine origin. This is then further codified by man into a more detailed set of laws, but they ultimately draw legitimacy from the divine, from something greater than man. It is about sin and how sin keeps people's actions in check even when no one else is looking, because God is always looking. Laws are therefore something to be held in high regard and strict adherence, since the first laws were cast in stone.
Contrast that with the East, where moral and ethical codes were not passed down in stone from a divine being, but come from various great philosophers like Confucius and Laozi who have their own preachings about how people should live. There was also the contest in ancient Chinese schools of thought between governing through moral codes versus governing through written ones. In the end, the Chinese arrived at governing using both. Moral codes and written laws are used to shape people's behaviors, but both are man-made. Man came up with them, and man can and do change them to suit the times.
In the West, the respect for the law has divine roots. In the East, the respect for the law varies with the power wielded by those who enforce the law.
When viewed through such a lens, China's actions whenever it challenges the existing international system may seem to Western eyes like a disrespect for the rule of law. But when viewed from an Eastern perspective, China is not disrespecting the rule of law; rather, it is challenging the appropriateness of the current set of laws. To China, laws are man-made, and they can and should be changed according to the times and circumstances. Since a set of laws is respected and observed only when there is some authority willing to enforce and uphold those laws, China is also challenging the will of nations to enforce and uphold the current international system.
If so, the key to getting China to keep within our current system is to show commitment toward enforcing and upholding what we have. But this also means we have to relook at our current system, and ask ourselves, "What are we willing to defend? What are we ready to change?" Because we can try to hang onto old and obsolete rules, but it is going to be hard to convince people to defend them. When our systems are always in line with the times, people will feel more willing to enforce, defend, and uphold them.
No comments:
Post a Comment