Why Democracy Never Took Root: Three Eastern Philosophies and the Art of the Noble Lie

Written in winter 2022 for POLI 113BR — a political theory course on Asia-Pacific governance — during my junior year. The essay asks whether Legalism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Wang Yangming's Idealism left any room for democratic thought. The short answer is no. The more interesting answer is in the closing caveat, which I almost cut for length and am glad I didn't: the entire argument is filtered through a Western lens, which raises the question of whether democracy is even the right measure. The bracketed notes within some quotes are my professor's annotations, preserved here as found.

Democracy is a western concept, therefore, determining the possibility of its usage in Eastern governments is an interesting task. Given the importance of various philosophical traditions, “with [their] emphasis on authority, hierarchy, order, and the supremacy of the collectivity over the individual,” it is possible to state that Asia-Pacific societies will always fail to create a democratic governance system (Hoston Prompt). Yet, it is important to deliberate this point based on evidence from said philosophies in order to provide a foundation for the argument. By looking at 3 schools of thought, including Legalism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Idealism, it becomes evident that the philosophical traditions of the Asia-Pacific, although varied in their ideological emphasis, allow for very little -- perhaps no -- democratic scope. 

The basis for the argument must utilize an eastern lens in order to accurately portray the possibility of democracy. Therefore, the degree to which each philosophy relies on a Socratic myth (or similar concept) will factor into the evaluation of the core argument. Also known as a Noble Lie, the concept of utilizing a myth to legitimize the body politic and leadership is a core element of eastern government(Lecture, January 3, 2022). One example of this was the “Mandate of Heaven,” in which the emperor was considered a child of the Heavens, and therefore justified in all actions -- although the favor of the Heavens could switch in the event of leadership changes (Lecture, January 10, 2022). As such, the Socratic myth utilized in Asia-Pacific traditions generally did not support political revolution, but could allow for a scope of political change. Along with this, many philosophical schools created core values that supported the Noble lie in their own ways, influencing the general “people” to accept their government (Lecture, January 10, 2022). The myth(s) did not inherently provide a provision for political change, but could influence the population by claiming that the current leader or government was not living up to the “Mandate of Heaven” --or any comparable lie utilized. Therefore, it is important to analyze the Socratic myth proposed by each of the 3 schools of thought along with their implications for political change and the role of the people in order to determine the basis on which democracy could -- in the case of the argument provided -- not thrive in Asia-Pacific societies. 

The first school of thought is Legalism, promoted by Han Feizi and Mozi, and founded on the belief that society was inherently flawed and chaotic, and must rely on a strong government in order to progress (Lecture, January 24, 2022). Rules and regulations formed the core pillars of the philosophy, linking strict government to controlled morality and societal “good.” The myth propagated by the Legalists was that, since humanity was naturally driven towards dissent rather than collaborative peace and progress, it was important to trust in the state for guidance and structure (Lecture, January 24, 2022). This effectively legitimized the polity by convincing the people that there was an inherent need for regulation that could only be found under the ruler -- as mandated by the Heavens (Lecture, January 24, 2022). One example of this thought is per Mozi, who said that

“when the honorable and the wise run the government, the ignorant and the humble{meaning those not esteemed for their wisdom -- GAH} remain orderly, but when the ignorant and the humble run the government, the honorable and the wise become rebellious. Therefore we know that elevating the worthy is the foundation of government (Lecture, January 24, 2022)”

Here, it is evident that the basis of societal consent to the government was based on the lack of rebellion. The general “people” didn’t need governing power because, not only were they “ignorant and humble,” but lacked any reason to overthrow the Empire (Lecture, January 24, 2022). This supports the argument that Chinese philosophies -- in this case Legalism -- did not provide a basis for democratic thought. 

While the tenets of the philosophy provided no scope for democratic thought, it is probable that the population yearned for more self-governance. Since Han Feizi believed in cultivation through chaos control, he vouched for the removal of private learning, harsh punishments for dissenting philosophers, and central regulation controlled by the emperor and his direct circle (Lecture, January 24, 2022). This authoritarianism would most definitely have sparked outrage, even if it was quickly silenced -- which shows that there was a small window of democratic possibility. Of course, it is important to note that Legalism wasn’t entirely a harsh force -- as per Professor Hoston, 

“The same rulers who can persuade men to die for the state in battle can induce people to love and benefit one another.  Rewards and punishments can  curb  evil  behavior  and  encourage  the  kind  of  good  behavior  to produce a good, moral order.”

This statement clearly summarizes the point that although deemed harsh (and it could be, depending on the ruler), Legalism was not entirely a negative form of governance. The philosophy aimed to curb immoral behavior, thereby allowing society to progress -- and that drive towards the future via a unified society was the core of the school of thought. Therefore, it is not entirely wrong for Legalism to be utilized over the possibility of democracy. Yet, as the argument is not based on public reactions or the contest of democracy over asian philosophies, it is important to understand that Legalism, at its core, heavily promoted the Socratic myth, thereby almost entirely nulling democratic ideals. 

The second school of thought that proves democracy had little to no scope in Asia-Pacific societies is Mahayana Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism originated in India and followed the ideals of renunciation and self-discovery. As such, when it was first introduced in China, it was rejected as a threat to the ruling structure due to its non-explicit legitimization of the body politic (Lecture, February 7, 2022). The focus on internal balance and connection was not altogether different from Confucian or other philosophies of the time, but the foreignness and reverence towards gods not part of Chinese society made Buddhism ostracized (Hoston 22). Yet, as it became integrated into Chinese (and later Japanese) societies, Mahayana Buddhism developed its own Noble lie in conjunction with the governing body. Instead of stating that humanity was chaotic and needed authoritarianism, like Legalism, Buddhism legitimized the emperor through connections to the Heavens and inherent morality (Lecture, February 14, 2022). One big change that Buddhism utilized to integrate into Chinese society was removing the claim that the religion was against the government; instead, as per Huiyuan, monks “refrain from reverence in serving the ruler and yet do not lose their respect (towards him)” (Lecture, February 14, 2022). This allowed Mahayana Buddhism to develop a foundation for legitimizing the politic. In fact, Huiyuan goes so far as to claim that the government must not only allow Buddhism to thrive, but it is their duty to sustain monks on the road to enlightenment -- potentially in return for blessings of continued rule (Lecture, February 14, 2022). 

Along with the “embrace of Buddhism…as a state religion,” it was conjoined with Confucian morals in order to spread across East Asia, thereby appeasing both the population and government (Lecture, February 14, 2022). The connection to deities beyond the emperor once served to show there was power beyond the government, but was soon incorporated into the existing “Mandate of Heaven” (Lecture, February 14, 2022). The use of the term Bodhisattva was key to this incorporation. In Buddhism, Bodhisattvas were enlightened beings who chose to instead remain on earth to guide their fellow humans on the right path. Some emperors, like Wencheng, believed that not only is the ruler a Bodhisattva but should be the central hub for Buddhist teachings, while others chose to utilize their “status” as Bodhisattva to simply be a “humane king” in accordance with Confucian ideals (Hoston, Tiantai Handout). By allowing for a varying degree of Buddhist influence on the government, the Chinese Empire(s) were able to self-legitimize as well as spread their beliefs across East Asia via a compelling religion (Hoston, Tiantai Handout). It cannot be stated that the Tiantai School was entirely trusting of the government, as leaders like Zhiyi were aware of the problems of government-run religion (Hoston, Tiantai Handout). Therefore, Zhiyi created a distinction by stating that a “truly humane emperor is potentially virtuous in both a Buddhist and Confucian sense,” but must resist the “temptation to actively control” Buddhism -- thereby legitimizing the government but keeping it as a separate entity (which would be more beneficial to general followers) (Hoston, Tiantai Handout). The policing of internal imbalance, as called for by Buddhism, was no longer an issue, and was instead accepted into existing philosophies in order to strengthen the Noble lie -- akin to appealing to a variety of religions.Therefore, it is implied that Buddhism itself was utilized as a part of the Socratic lie in order to legitimize the body politic, thereby removing elements of revolutionary change and appeasing the people (by allowing them to follow the philosophies of their choice) -- thereby removing the possibility of democracy in East Asia. 

The last school to be discussed is Idealism, headed by Wang Yingming. His creation of a Neo-Confucianist school was in response to Buddhism, because, according to Idealism, it was not enough to simply rely on internal thought (Lecture, March 7, 2022). Buddhism emphasized following a spiritual path in order to succeed, but Wang Yingming found it too isolationary to create a thriving society. Therefore, Idealism was created in order to revive Confucian beliefs in the way he saw fit -- based on Mencius’ writings rather than the previous interpretation (such as from the Rationalist school) (Lecture, March 7, 2022). The doctrines of the 5 bonds were heavily emphasized, but were then merged with certain Buddhist elements such as connecting the mind-and-heart before externally influencing society (Lecture, March 7, 2022). As per Wang Yingming, “one’s own nature is self-sufficient” and it is against human nature to seek meaning outside the individual (Lecture, March 7, 2022). Along with this idea, Idealism was founded on the ideal of “man as good” (echoing Mencius) and that:

“He [a “good” man]  regards  the  world  as  one  family  and  the  country  as  one  person. As to those who make a cleavage between objects and distinguish between the self and others, they are small men {Note  the  echoes  of  Mahayana Buddhism in this passage. --GAH}” (Lecture, March 7, 2022).

The key here is that there should be no distinction between the “self and others” (similar to Mahayana Buddhism) (Lecture, March 7, 2022). The main difference between Idealism and Rationalism (both Neo-Confucian), however, was that instead of valuing only investigation, it was important to understand that self-cultivation (or “rectifying the mind-and-heart”) was futile without action, and the Rationalist view of constant “investigation without action” would lead nowhere (Lecture, March 7, 2022). 

By creating a philosophy based on Confucian forefathers, Wang Yingming promoted the same Socratic myth. Confucius’ viewpoints were not against the governing body. Instead, he strived for a reversal of the status quo to traditional values; it was important to have “heavenly peace” in order to uphold the “Mandate of Heaven” (Lecture, January 10, 2022). By emphasizing this link, it proved the importance of having a connection between the monarchy and Heavens, thereby establishing peace across the Empire. This also created less scope for political change in terms of structure -- while it was possible (and happened several times) for emperors to be overthrown in accordance with “Heaven’s wishes,” the entire structure of an Empire was key to Confucianism (Lecture, January 10, 2022). There was no scope (during the time period) for the “people” to be involved in administrative affairs or governance because that was not their place (Lecture, January 10, 2022). Confucianism placed emphasis on people following their individual predestined paths and utilizing the fundamental doctrines to do so (for example, filial piety was essential to peaceful internal and external interactions). The idea that the government should retain power but only by following the traditional paths and upholding morality was yet again emphasized in the Neo-Confucian school of thought. Therefore, the Noble lie of legitimacy remained a key tenet of Idealism, leaving little room for political change. It allowed for people to internalize their thoughts while also prioritizing external action, allowing for more holistic development of the individual and, by extension, the governing body. 

It can be argued that since action was valued by Idealism, it could promote the idea of democratic thought if an individual or collective found fault with the current government. Wing Yangming himself stated that,

“If this is understood, then when only knowledge is mentioned, action is included, and when only action is mentioned, knowledge  is  included.  ...  Today  [the]  doctrine  of  knowledge  first  and action later is not a minor disease and it did not come about only yesterday. My  present  advocacy  of  the  unity  of  knowledge  and  action  is  precisely  the medicine for that disease” (Lecture, March 7, 2022).

He connects action to knowledge, which provides a potential basis for societal reform. If people become more knowledgeable, they will naturally take more action (and vice versa), so there is a potential foundation for democratic ideals or at least some governance delegated to the people. After all, by taking action, it could allow for a moral society or one more linked to the fundamental principles of Confucianism. However, as seen with the other schools of thought, even the smallest inkling of democratic thought is overtaken by the legacy of philosophies that promoted legitimization of the body politic. The force of the Noble lie was too overbearing, and made it difficult to formulate thoughts beyond what was traditionally acceptable. Even Mahayana Buddhism had to incorporate Confucian ideals in order to thrive, before eventually being used as a “state religion” by emperors attempting to legitimize their rule. Therefore, Mahayana Buddhism, Legalism, and Neo-Confucianism via Idealism would not have supported democratic ideals. Of course, there is always the possibility that democracy utilizes Confucianism as a platform (masking itself under the tenets), but that is not a key factor into the argument being supported. After all, the various traditional philosophies’ emphasis on political legitimization provide ample foundation for the continued success of the monarchical structure implemented by Asia-Pacific (specifically Chinese) societies. 

Based on extensive analysis, the point that Asia-Pacific societies fail to create democracy based on their Confucian-linked philosophies still stands. All 3 philosophies utilize a Socratic myth, albeit at different levels of influence, which is a determining factor in the proposed argument. Legalism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Idealism all have varied ideological emphasis, but together, prove that there was little to no democratic scope in East Asian societies. The amount of political change possible does vary, since even Confucius believed that the emperor was legitimized through the upholding of traditional tenets and by “humane” ruling, but none provided any leeway for the “people” to be involved in governance. Instead, they focused on establishing a peaceful society through internal cultivation or (in the case of Legalism) strong governmental control. 

For one, by philosophizing and implementing a rigid authoritarian structure based on the need to develop societal morality, Legalism ensured that not only would democracy never take root, but the people would also be tied to the current governmental structure in the hopes of peace and progress. In contrast, Mahayana Buddhism in itself was utilized in conjunction with Confucian values in order to legitimize the body politic. By establishing rulers as Bodhisattva and exerting a level of control over the religion as a whole, the Empire was able to appease the people (rather than giving them power of governance) as well as strengthen the foundation of the monarchy -- yet again reducing the possibility of democracy. Along those same lines, Idealism was Neo-Confucian, and based on utilizing Mencius’ teachings of Confucianism as well as reorganizing the Rationalist schools’ views to “better suit” societal progress. While it cut out “unnecessary” elements such as the solitary penance promoted by Buddhism, Idealist thought valued self-cultivation and action and promoted the same Socratic myth as Confucianism -- in which it was the burden of the emperor to rule “humanely,” thereby retaining his status as a link to the Heavens. In conclusion, it is clear that all 3 schools of thought legitimized the body politic, and aimed to influence the “people” to focus on self-cultivation and unity rather than turning their eyes to the potentially fundamental problems of monarchic governance and the possible implementation of democracy. Even so, it is important to note that the argument analyzed is biased with Western influence -- it cannot be said that democracy would be a better structure than the one utilized in traditional Asia-Pacific societies, thereby creating a counter question with regards to the viability of Confucian-linked philosophies influencing the body politic in Western societies.