國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
28
2. THEORETICAL CONTEXT
How can there be causality between Confucianism and political legitimacy?
In the previous chapter, it has already been briefly mentioned that a country’s culture can influence people’s (subjective) viewpoint as to what makes power legitimate. However a more firm proof of this causality is needed.
Authors who write about the role of Confucianism in contemporary Chinese politics and society were naturally consulted first. Their actual arguments are presented in chapter four. The theories of political legitimacy which they use, or which they hint at, are discussed in this chapter. However, some authors don’t mention any theory at all, and suffice with the suggestion that a certain phenomenon leads to political legitimacy, for whose arguments this chapter also sought a theoretical basis. This section is thus meant to provide an overview of theories which can help to understand the aforementioned causality.
As stated before, some authors did mention specific theories of political legitimacy, namely: traditional, consensus and institutionalism theories. The author of this thesis added two theories – mix and conflict theories – to back up the arguments of those authors who failed to provide a theoretical basis. This overview is not meant to be complete, nor is it meant to provide a full-fledged theoretical framework. It can however, provide a context with which to understand the arguments made in this thesis. This division into five theories of political legitimacy is created by the author of this thesis, and doesn’t rest on a commonly accepted view of this field of study.
1. Traditional legitimacy theory 2. Consensus theory
3. Conflict theory 4. Mix theory
5. Institutionalism theory
Zelditch argues that the consensus, mix, and conflict theories are the main ideas of political legitimacy conceived by the Western tradition, for which he uses an intellectual history that spans 24 centuries: from Thucydides in 400 B.C. to the highly
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
29
influential works of Max Weber, to more contemporary authors.1 Guo confirms that most Western theories of legitimacy in the end come down to one of these three.2 The consensus and mix theories relate to a large degree to performance-legitimacy – which most authors describe as pivotal to understand the CCP’s post-1989 legitimacy – whereby consensus refers to the state meeting the population’s expectations, and mix refers to the state first changing the population’s expectations to more desired – or easy to accomplish – forms. In both cases, when the state performs according to society’s expectations, legitimacy is created. Conflict theory holds that culture is often used to cover up, mask or quell real conflicts of interest. With regards to the other two theories, traditional legitimacy is based on the works of Max Weber, and regards culture as an unchangeable primordial layer which influences people’s viewpoint as to what makes political power legitimate. Finally, Institutionalism describes how countries’ institutions shape people’s social expectations, demands, and performance criteria, and thereby influence perceptions of political legitimacy. What follows is a description of these five theories.
2.1. TRADITIONAL
Max Weber wrote one of the most influential works on political legitimacy. In his book The Theory of Social and Economic Organization he presents three categories of legitimacy: legal-rational, charismatic, and traditional.3 Although the first two categories are very relevant for a historical overview of the CCP’s political legitimacy, the last one can be applied to this analysis, and is used by amongst others Weatherly. Traditional legitimacy as “the contemporary application of methods of governing or political ideas that stretch back through the ages and which are familiar to the populace.”4 Weatherly elaborates that this theory assumes a population to be intrinsically conservative, and feels
1 Morris Zelditch, “Theories of Legitimacy,” in The Psychology of Legitimacy, Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice and Intergroup Relations, ed. John T. Jost and Brenda Major (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 2001), 33-53.
2 Baogang Guo, China’s Quest for Political Legitimacy, the New Equity-Enhancing Politics (Plymouth:
Lexington Books, 2010), 6-7.
3 For legal-rational legitimacy, Weber mentions the “belief in the legality of patterns of normative rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands”. “Charismatic legitimacy refers to “the quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.”
4 Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (New York: Free Press, 1964).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
30
comfortable when things happen in a familiar way.5 Therefore, governing in a way that is familiar to the populace will create political legitimacy. Guo voices a similar argument, stating that legitimacy is a subjective feeling about the justness of a government, which is profoundly determined by one’s cultural context.6
2.2. CONSENSUS
Emphasizes the importance of consensus regarding norms and values in the legitimation process. Disregards power.
Axioms: “A. Acceptance of the social order is voluntary. B. Consent is based on belief in norms and values. C. It is consensus about norms, values and beliefs between rulers and ruled that creates legitimacy. D. The social or political order is only stable if it is legitimate.”7
Major theorists: Aristotle, Parsons, Lipset.8
Relevance: Adherence to the same cultural norms and values between the rulers and the ruled can make power legitimate.
2.3. CONFLICT
Emphasizes the underlying conflict of real interest and the role of power. Norms, values, ideology and myth mask real conflicts of interest, makes the unacceptable acceptable, and frames debates by metaphors and propaganda.
Axioms: “A. The Fundamental basis of both action and order is rational self-interest.
B. The real motivation of the rulers and the ruled are in conflicts of interests. C. It is power that makes rules binding, but pure power cannot make people believe that a rule is ‘right’. D. Ideology, myth and ritual are necessary to legitimate rules by making them ‘right’. E. In the long run, pure power is unstable unless legitimated;
therefore legitimacy is prerequisite of any social order.”9
5 Robert Weatherly, Politics in China since 1949, Legitimizing Authoritarian Rule (New York: Taylor &
Francis, 2007), 9-10.
6 Guo, China’s Quest, 2.
7 Paraphrased from: Zelditch, “Theories of Legitimacy,” 41.
8 Ibid, 41.
9 Paraphrased from: Ibid. 42
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
31
Major theorists: Machiavelli, Marx.10
Relevance: Culture can be used to mask real sources of disharmony in society by justifying certain ‘rules’, and thereby legitimize power and/or reduce illegitimacy created by the conflicts of interests.
2.4. MIX
Emphasizes that legitimation processes are collective. A mix of consensus and conflict theories.
Axioms: “A. Legitimacy is multi-tiered: collective level and individual level. B.
Norms, values and beliefs are established at the collective level as legitimate, which people subsequently regard as objective fact. C. At the individual level, people may or may not regard these norms, values and beliefs as the way things ought to be. D.
But, they act as if they believe in it, even if they do not. Individuals’ behavior becomes oriented to the existence of a normative order. E. motives for compliance:
habit, affect, expedience and true belief.”11
Major theorists: Weber, Gramsci, Habermas.
Relevance: Norms and values with regards to what is legitimate are established at the collective level, and therefore can be influenced by the rulers to more desired forms.
2.5. INSTITUTIONALISM
This theory is often accredited to North, who used it to understand why some societies seem to perform better than others.12 According to Immergut, the social sciences divide institutions into informal institutions – norms, customs, values and beliefs – and formal institutions – rules, organizations, laws and government structures – which together regulate human action and organize society. Clearly, especially informal institutions show considerable overlap with culture. Holbig mentions that institutions can define the rightful source of authority, the common interest, performance criteria, social
10 Ibid, 42.
11 Paraphrased from: Ibid, 42 -47.
12 Douglas C. North, “Economic Performance through Time,” American Economic Review 84, no. 3 (1994):
359-362.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
32
expectations and mobilize popular consent.13 Gilley argues that scholars put forth four ways that explains institutional change: Economic-, sociopolitical- historical-, and legitimacy-based. The first three look to structural societal conditions. The fourth school is the legitimacy-based approach, and gives central explanatory power to the importance of ideas, norms and values. This approach sees “institutions as being at the center of performance, legitimacy and feedback. Maintaining legitimacy means shifting institutions to generate valued performance (….) institutions are both a consequence and cause of legitimacy.”14 Therefore, as culture influences some of these institutions, it can be utilized to shift institutions to ‘generate the valued performance’.
2.6. CONCLUSION
Important for the reader to remember is the fact that culture – Confucianism – can influence political legitimacy in many ways. Weber described culture as an unchangeable primordial layer. Consequently, the Chinese population will reward those rulers who govern in a Confucian way. Related to the above, The CCP can seek consensus with the population by propagating the same – Confucian – norms and values which are alive in the hearts and minds of its population. The CCP can also choose to change its societies’
preferred norms and values into more desired – or easy to accomplish – forms. For example, towards certain Confucian norms and values. The theory of institutionalism can be interpreted as an example of the above two theories, but regards institutions as the place where social expectations and demands are created. Culture is also described as a way to distract the population – or to cover up – real sources of disharmony. With regards to this theory, China’s rampant corruption and income inequality come to mind, whereby a revival of Confucianism could help to quell the population’s discontent by providing
‘opium for the people’. Chapter four will list examples of all the above theories.
13 Heike Holbig, “Ideological Reform and Political Legitimacy in China, Challenges in the Post-Jiang Era,”
in: Regime Legitimacy in Contemporary China, Institutional Change and Stability, ed. Thomas Heberer and Gunter Schubert, (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2009), 13-34.
14 Bruce Gilley, “Legitimacy and Institutional Change,” Comparative Political Studies 41, no. 3 (2008):
274-275.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
33