140 replies to this topic

[General_Zhaoyun]

During the late period of Qing dynasty, there was an attempted reform called "Wuxu" reform which attempted to model the government after that of Japan or England, where it became a constitutional monarchy. However, this attempt failed after Yuan Shikai betrayed Emperor Guangxu, and Empress Dowager Cixi had the gang of reformist executed and detained Emperor Guangxu.

Towards 1905, there were further attempt to try and make Qing a constitutional monarchy, but it was too late. By 1911, the revolution overthrew Qing dynasty and a republic was established by Sun Yat Sen.

Do you think republic was the inevitable process in chinese history? Which would you favour, a constitutional monarchy or a republic for China?

[astralis]

china was being slowly destroyed by the corruption problem. by the early 1900s, this had gotten so bad that reform was really no longer possible. a move to constitutional monarchy would have required lots of time and extremely determined leadership to ease out and reform the ruling elite; china had neither of these.

so the question of whether a republic was "inevitable" or not, really depends on the status of reforms. as history played out, a revolution was inevitable, in any case.

[General_Zhaoyun]

china was being slowly destroyed by the corruption problem. by the early 1900s, this had gotten so bad that reform was really no longer possible. a move to constitutional monarchy would have required lots of time and extremely determined leadership to ease out and reform the ruling elite; china had neither of these.

so the question of whether a republic was "inevitable" or not, really depends on the status of reforms. as history played out, a revolution was inevitable, in any case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Astralis, why was corruption so rampant? Was it b'cos of a failure of the Qing bureaucracy? Or was it meant that Qing dynasty had started fallen after the Taiping rebellion?

[astralis]

qing dynasty was already on a downward slide in the early 19th century. the arrival of the british and opium trading only made the fall that much faster.

corruption was rampant because of the fossilized bureaucracy. because china is so big, it's hard for the central government to keep a close eye on every part of the empire- thus corruption starts small and starts spreading. with the spread of corruption, that means less money going to the central government, which means greater taxation, further corruption, leading to the collapse.

corruption was a failure of the qing bureaucracy AND it was already starting to fail far before the tai'ping rebellion. you can see this pattern in just about every single chinese dynasty. but the funny thing is that instead of trying to fix things, everyone just blamed it on the "mandate of heaven" instead- it's NATURAL that things go corrupt and a "fresh" new dynasty take over...

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

There is no doubt in my mind that a Constitutional monarchy would be better. The creation of the pathetic republic degenerated China to half a century of warfare and division, loosing central control, while loosing foreign possessions. Not to mention the decrease of output and the weakening of the military. The ROC regime is the biggest stain in Chinese history, even weaker and poorer than late Qing.

[General_Zhaoyun]

There is no doubt in my mind that a Constitutional monarchy would be better. The creation of the pathetic republic degenerated China to half a century of warfare and division, loosing central control, while loosing foreign possessions. Not to mention the decrease of output and the weakening of the military. The ROC regime is the biggest stain in Chinese history, even weaker and poorer than late Qing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would say ROC paves way for a more modern China, in the Republican history of China. The loosing of central control is prevalent in every founding of chinese dynasty, it always took some years before the central government can gain control of China. We have to bear in mind that from 1911 - 1949, the world was basically in a turbulent period. Japan was busy expanding in Asia. New ideology such as Fascism, Communism appeared in Europe, and all of this influenced China.

Sun Yat Sen's work on ROC was historic, in that it overthrew 2000 years of imperialism in China. Sun's aim is to build a modern China based on Republican ideology modelled after America but this work was complicated by several warlords in the north, the control of the north by Yuan Shikai and the appearance of communists. Chiang Kai Shek managed to unify North China during the northern expedition in 1928, but did not manage to conquer the communist. He also faced threats from Japanese. Even up to today, the communist did not manage to unify Taiwan. Long unite results in long disunity. A collapse of a dynasty will invariably lead to disintegration, and thus what you see in ROC (segration by warlords).

I say, even with a constitution monarchy, the Qing would not be able to withstand the various rebellion and changes that took place around the world.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I do not see how ROC paved a new way for modern china when a constitutional monarchy is doing the same thing, The only difference is that ROC resulted in Chaos while a constitutional monarchy with the support of the Bei Yang army would have held on to the empire and pass out reforms that would be mature by the mid 1910s. Not to mention the ROc is in every way as corrupt as the late Qing if not, even more so.
Besides the Qing national flag looks cooler than the ugly 5 stripes and the later white sun.

[Kulong]

Besides the Qing national flag looks cooler than the ugly 5 stripes and the later white sun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that the Qing national flag looks cooler than the 5 stripes flag but certainly not the white sun 青天白日

[Kulong]

One must note that in both cases, China still lacked a competent leader. Sun Zhongshan might have had a great vision and had the idealism to change over 2000 years of tradition, but he lacked the leadership qualities needed to lead a country, especially in times of peril. There is no person in my mind who could've lead the constitutional monachy either. I honestly believe that Mao was the best of all the people competing for leadership in China, and that the PRC was the best solution at the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mao was a good revolutionarist but horrible as a peace-time leader. The ideal situation would've been that after Mao has led the CCP to take over mainland, the leadership was to be passed on to more educated leaders who were more fit for peace-time.

[astralis]

Mao was a good revolutionarist but horrible as a peace-time leader. The ideal situation would've been that after Mao has led the CCP to take over mainland, the leadership was to be passed on to more educated leaders who were more fit for peace-time.

like who?

[Kulong]

Zhou EnLai?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yup.