Power and Authority: New Perspectives

Power and Authority: New Perspectives Yu Keping Chair Professor and Dean PKU School of Government April 11, 2016

Part One: Power and Authority Their Connotations in Chinese and Western Context from Ancient Times to the Modern Era • The modern Chinese conception of Power is Quan Li (权力)，which consists of two characters of ‘quan’ (权) and ‘li’(力). The modern Chinese conception of authority is Quan Wei （权威）, which consists of two characters of ‘quan’(权) and ‘wei’ (威). Their connotations in ancient Chinese context are quite different from ones in modern Chinese and Western contexts.

The ancient Chinese character for “Quan” is “權”, which has the following meanings • 1）称锤 Weight • 2）称量 Weighing • 3）平衡 Balance • 4）势 Momentum • 5）裁定 Arbitration • 6）权谋 Tactics • 7）权柄 Scepter • 8）摄官 Interim Officials

The ancient Chinese character for “Li” is “力”, whose meanings include • 1）人之筋 People’s muscle • 2）体能 Faculty of body • 3）强制 Coersion • 4）劳役 Labor • 5）气势 Momentum

The ancient Chinese character for “Wei” is “威”, which means: • 1）尊严 Dignity • 2）影响力 Influence • 3）震惊 Shock • 4）刑罚或惩罚 Penalty or Punishment • 5）通“畏”，惧怕或可怕的事 Fear

‘Quan Li’(Power) and ‘Quan Wei’(Authority) in Ancient Chinese context • In ancient Chinese language, the word ‘quan li’(power) has two connotations. 1） it means official positions：and2) it means official’s strength and influence. • In ancient Chinese language, the word ‘quan wei’(authority) mainly refers to powerful influence.

‘ Quan li’(Power) and ‘quan wei (authority) in Modern Chinese context • In modern Chinese language, the connotations of ‘quan li’(power) are completely different from the ancient context. Firstly, it refers to politically coercive strength. Secondly, it means the dominant force within certain jurisdiction. • The meanings of ‘quan wei’(authority) in modern Chinese are to large extent different those in ancient Chinese. Firstly, it means the influence and prestige that can convince others. Secondly, it refers to somebody or something that enjoy prestige and status in a certain field.

“Power” in English • The English word “power” derives from the French word “pouvoir” while the latter originates from “potestas” or “potential” in Latin language. Basically, it means that one person has the “ability” to influence another person or certain objects. However, the word “power” has a diverse of meanings in English. For example, Oxford English Dictionary lays out 16 meanings for the word “power” while Wikipedia arms it with more than 20 meanings, which cover a wide range of fields, from mathematics, physics, and computer science to social science. The following meanings are relevant to our discussions : 1) the ability to do; 2) a particular faculty of body or mind; 3) government, influence or authority; 4) official or legal authority; 5) an influential person or group; 6) a military strength; 7) a state having international influence; 8) a physical force or strength.

“Authority” in English The meanings of “authority” include: 1) experts in certain fields; 2) government or officialdom; 3) administrative organs; 4) the power to make decisions; 5) influences; 6) official permits or jurisdiction.

“Power” in Political Science: Current Definitions • Definition 1: “Power” means a sort of coercion that can change the behaviors of others. Such coercion is manifested in three aspects: to correct the outcomes of others’ behaviors; to stop the behaviors of others; and to prevent the possible behaviors of others. • Definition 2: “Power” refers to the capabilities to realize certain objectives and get specific benefits as well as the resources needed to do so.

“Power” in Political Science: Current Definitions • Definition 3: “Power” refers to state regime and represents the coercive forces of the state, which aims to protect the interests of ruling classes. For class struggles or political struggles, power is both an instrument and the objective per se. • Definition 4: “Power” is a complicated network or micro-level social structure, with the aim to restrain and regulate people’s behaviors. As a post-modernist definition, it emphasizes the micro and structural aspects of power and represents a break from traditional and the mainstream definitions for “power”. The representative scholar for this definition is Michel Foucault.

Power: My Definition • “Power” is a coercive force in nature. First and foremost it is the coercive force of the state. Through this coercive force, the power-holders aim to subordinate the subjects to their wills. So far, the highest form of power has been state power for human society. Apart from state power, however, there exist a variety of powers in any given society. To my understanding, in perspective of political science, essentially speaking, power means the institutionalized coercive force that aims to extract obedience from the subjects.

“Authority” in Political Science: Current Definitions • Definition 1: “Authority” is the capability to ensure the voluntary obedience of the subjects. As the classical definition for “authority” in political science, it emphasizes the capability of specific individual or organization to extract voluntary obedience from the subjects.

Definition 2: “Authority” refers to legitimate power. This is a prevalent definition for “authority” in western political science. By underlining the indivisible linkages between authority and power, this definition lays bare the fact that authority is based on power and it represents the voluntary obedience and acceptance of power from the subjects. • Definition 3: “Authority” means the influence to convince others. Similarly underlining the voluntary obedience from the subjects, it assumes that the subjects’ voluntary obedience is more the result of the rational forces, rather than of the power.

Authority: My Definition • Similar with power, authority also represents the force to extract obedience from the subjects. Although power can extract obedience in a rather direct manner, the links between authority and obedience is largely indirect, i.e. authority is based on the rational judgments of the subjects. So, if power represents a direct coercive force, then authority is basically an indirect influence. In this sense, authority can be viewed as the influence to extract voluntary obedience from the subjects based on the latters’ convictions.

Part Two: Differences And Relationshipbetween Power and Authority • 1) Authority can magnify the effects of power. • Without authority, the effects of power will be greatly contained: not only is it hard to achieve intended effects, more importantly, it can even result in counterproductive effects. When faced with the disobedience of the subjects, power can hardly achieve its intended effects. When faced with the resistance from the subjects, power can become counterproductive. However, if power is transformed into authority, then it can obtain the voluntary obedience from the subjects and ultimately facilitate the realization of intended effects of power.

2) Authority can substantially reduce the costs in exercise of power. • Once power cannot be transformed into authority, it will definitely engender higher costs. However, if power was successfully transformed into authority, then the costs of power in use will be greatly reduced. More authority of power and less costs in exercise of power, and vice versa. When the government faces enormous administrative costs, it generally reflects the losing of its authority.

3) Authority is beyond the official positions Power is attached to the official positions while this is not the case for authority. Without formal institutional authorized, power is only a mirage. No official position, no power. Once someone loses his or her position, then the power he or she formerly had will evaporate as a result. In contrast, authority could be beyond official positions. A man with authority could influence and change the behaviors of others, even though he might have no formal positions. For instance, in the Chinese countryside, many elder’s elites have even more authority than the officially head of villagers and the Party secretary.

4) In terms of space, authority has a much broader sphere of influence than power • If one has only power but not authority, then he can only exert influences on those who are within his jurisdiction. However, if one has both power and authority, then his influences will go beyond his jurisdiction. If a person has more authority, he will generally have broader sphere of influence.

5) In terms of time, the effects of authority will last much longer. • The effects of authority will last longer than that of power. The effects of power generally rest on the positions and term limits of the power-holders. In contrast, the effects of authority are not necessarily attached to official positions. Furthermore, authority can elicit the voluntary obedience from the subjects, so its effects will be magnified as a result. Thus, the effects of authority last longer than that of power. If a person has more authority, his influence will generally last longer.

Part Three : Wangdao (Kingly Way) and Bada (Hegemonic Way)Or Power and Authority in Traditional Chinese Context • Although traditional Chinese thinkers did not put forward such modern concepts like “authority” and “power”, there exists very similar notions in traditional Chinese political philosophy, which are manifested in the following two conception, Wangdao (kingly way) and Badao (hegemonic way). Put simply, Wangdao aims to induce obedience through virtue and benevolence, and it is the ideal ruling modality for sage-like rulers (shengren, king of philosophy). In contrast, Badao aims to extract obedience through coercion, and it is the basic ruling modality for mediocre rulers in traditional China. The essential difference between the Wangdao and Badao can be summarized as “voluntary obedience vs. forced obedience”.

Wangdao and Badao: Typical expressions in traditional Chinese classics • Mencius (Mengzi), a great Chinese thinker and educator in 4 Century B.C, is widely recognized as the pundit of theoretical thinking of Wangdao and Badao. He not only defined the concepts of Wangdao and Badao, but also made systematic explanations. According to him, both Wangdao and Badao aim to extract obedience from the subjects. But their essential difference lies in the fact that Wangdao targets voluntary obedience while Badao tends to extract obedience through coercive manners. For the subjects, obeying Wangdao is amicable while obeying Badao is something aversive.

As Mencius once argued, “Those who exert coercion under the pretense of benevolence will become hegemonic and they tend to rely on a big country. Those who genuinely enshrine virtue and benevolence will become kings who don’t necessarily reply on a big country. The territories of Tang and West Zhou were only square 35 km and square 50 km respectively, but this did not prevent them to become great rulers. Coercion can’t induce genuine obedience, but virtue and benevolence can”.

Wangdao(Kingly Way): the Ideal Political Model in Traditional China • The Chinese history has witnessed the ceaseless debates on the merits and shortcomings of Wangdao (Kingly Way) and Badao(Hegemonic Way) for thousands of years. Generally speaking, Wangdao seems to have won these debates since it is regarded by the rulers, intellectuals and ordinary people in traditional China as the ideal political model as well as the core political value in Chinese culture. This is largely due to this fact that Wangdao can more effectively defend the interests of ruling classes than Badao. More specifically, Wangdao can bring about genuine and voluntary obedience, reduce the administrative costs, improve administrative efficacy and ultimately help maintain regime stability and social harmony.

The Crux of Wangdao • The crux of Wangdao is to win the hearts of the people. If a ruler aims to induce voluntary obedience from the ordinary people, he first and foremost must convince the people that his policies and behaviors are “legitimate” and “appropriate”, representing their interests or the public interests-something close to “political identification” in modern political science. As Mencius once put it, “those who enjoy Dao will win the world while those who deviate from Dao will number their days as rulers”. Dao as Mencius mentioned has much to do with both the will of God and people, which is actually the “legitimacy” in Max Weber’s words.

Wangdao and Meritocracy, Benevolent Government and Good Government • To win the hearts of the people, rulers must practice “virtue government” (Dezheng), “benevolent government” (Renzheng) or “good government”. As the Confucius argued, “Government should be guided by the virtue of its rulers”. Similarly, Mencius advocated that “if the government is not guided by benevolence, then a society can hardly maintain stability and harmony”. As long as the government is guided by virtue or benevolence, the people will voluntarily follow the rulers.

The essence of “good government” (shanzheng) or “benevolent government” (renzheng) is that the rulers must take people’s demands into account and care about the latter’s wellbeing. As Mencius once preached, “If a ruler cares about the wellbeing of his subjects, he will definitely win the hearts of the people”. Of course, the most important aspect of “virtue government” or “benevolent government”, for Mencius, is to increase the material benefits for the people and Wangdao (Kingly Way) finally leads to people’s welfare.

How to Realize “good government” or “benevolent government” • Then, how to convince the power-holders to take into account the people and practice “virtue government” or “benevolent government”? Ancient Chinese philosophers had a consensus to this question: A ruler must consistently cultivate his mind and let his virtue and moral appealing guide the people. Put simply, Neisheng (inner virtue) could be the only way towards Wanwang (a sage-like king or king of philosophy).

The Ideal Route towards “neisheng” and “wanwang” (“inner virtue and then sage-like king”) • The Great Learning, a Confucian classic, desribed the ideal route towards “neisheng and wanwang”( “inner virtue and then “sage-like king”): “The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtues throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated themselves. Wishing to cultivate themselves, they first rectified their minds. Wishing to rectify their minds, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.

Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their minds were then rectified. Their minds being rectified, they could be cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy”.

Challenges to the Politics of “Wangdao” • The politics of “Wangdao”(Kingly Way), as envisioned by ancient Chinese idealists, faces four stern challenges from the very beginning: • 1) Is “Wangdao” the opposite of “Badao”? • 2) Is it realistic to practice “Wangdao” without “Badao”? • 3) Is the ideal route towards “neisheng and wanwang” (“inner virtue and then sage-like king”) feasible in practice? • 4) Has ever “Wangdao” as a political ideal been appeared in traditional China? Or it only existed as a political ideal in Confucian minds?

Different Attitudes towards “Wangdao” and “Badao”: Confucians, Legalism and Marxism • 1) Confucians in pre-Qin Dynasty argued that “rulers practiced Wangdao during the Three-Emperor Era while Badao became prevalent during the Spring and Autumn Era”. • 2) The most of traditional Chinese intellectuals agreed that “Confucianism (Rujia) prefers Wangdao while Legalism (Fajia) prefers Badao”. • 3) Marxism: China has never been genuine the politics of Wangdao. “In China, Wangdao looks like opposite to Badao, but as a matter of fact they are cousins. Once there was a Wangdao, there was always a Badao in some way”(LU Xun).

My View: Wangdao was only an ideal in minds, but Badao had long been the reality in traditional China. • Lu Xun’s analysis was very incisive. It is not only congruent with the basic conceptions of power and authority in modern political science, but also is close to the reality of Chinese traditional politics. • Firstly, in traditional China, authority was inseparable from power. Just as coercion was the basis for obedience, power was the basis for authority. • Secondly, in traditional China, “Wangdao” existed only as an ideal while “Badao” was the “silver bullet” on the ground.

Both “Wangdao” and “Badao” were practiced in traditional China, but “Badao” was basically • The Chinese rulers were aware enough that they could not maintain their rules only through “Wangdao”. So, “Badao” was definitely indispensable. As Han Xuandi frankly confessed that “my dynasty practiced both Wangdao and Badao from the very start of our throne”. • Nevertheless, each ruler wanted to have more authority based on his power. In order to empower authority to his power, ancient Chinese ruling class established a sophisticated system of etiquettes, rites and symbols.

An Etiquette System to Strengthen Authority of the Rulers • This system of official rites began to form during the Western Zhou and Spring and Autumn periods and steadily perfected itself up until the Qing. Ritual was the basic norm for maintaining order in traditional China. The common saying, ‘ritual norm collapsed and music ceremony ruined’, was used to describe the loss of social order. Traditional official ritual was structured entirely according to official and noble rank. Each official rank had its ritual protocols. There were strict rules according to official rank for such things as entrances and exits from official residences, clothing and hats, the number of signs and guards for external visits, the sequences for court visits, the sizes of seals and paper, the layout of public documents, the language for writing composition and the layout of tombs after death.

A Social Honor System to Mystify Power • Honors can be granted both during life and after death. In ancient China, these two types were closely related to official position. A person’s official or noble ranking was his most important social status. In traditional society, a person’s greatest honor in life was to be knighted by the court. Honors awarded to officials after death were known as “yihao” ( 謚号) and there was a very sophisticated system of regulations. The common saying was: “no official titles in life, then no honors in death”. There were different words for the death of different officials. For example, the death of emperor was called ‘beng’, the death of minister was called ‘hong’, the death of senior official was called ‘zi’, the death of civil servant was called ‘bulu’ and the death of ordinary person was called ‘si’.

A Cultural Value System to Glorify Power • In traditional China, the degree of official status even became the yardstick to measure cultural, ethical and moral standards. The higher one’s official status, it seemed that the greater the amount of knowledge and truth one controlled and the higher one’s ethical and moral standing. As the highest ruler, the emperor was usually the embodiment of truth and knowledge and the representative of virtue and nobility. The emperor was not only the lord of the people. He was also the guide for thought and the paragon of virtue.

Conclusive Remarks: Power and Authority at the Age of Democratization and Networking • Power and authority are the core components of political life. The subjects, sources, connections, regulations, functions, symbols, modalities and characteristics of power and authority define the state of political life in any given society. They are also the benchmarks that distinguish modern politics from its traditional counterpart. So, what kind of relationship should exist between power and authority in modern politics? What preconditions should be met in order to transform coercion-based power into voluntarily-obeyed authority?

Major sources of Legitimate Authority in Modern Era • In essence, the transition from traditional politics to modern politics is also a shift from the overriding significance of political power (held by various officials) to the overarching priority of civil rights. Such a shift fundamentally changed the sources of power and authority, and reshaped the institutional environment as a whole. In this sense, it also changed the mechanisms through which power is to be transformed into authority.

Democracy and Modern Political Civilization • Democracy rather than autocracy, rule of law instead of rule of man, and good governance rather than good government have been the major sources of political authority in the modern era. Therefore, only political authority legitimated by democracy, rule of law and good governance could meet the demands of modern political civilization.

Legitimacy Sources of Officials’ Authority under the Condition of Democratization and Networking • In the modern democratic politics, especially at an age of networking and globalization, both the legitimacy of public authority and of officials’ personal authority have been utterly changed. • To have authority among the public, an official absolutely needs to be just, integral, dutiful, law-abiding and caring as in the traditional age, but all of these should not come through various mystified, privilege-based and hierarchical etiquette systems. Instead, more transparency, equality, responsibility, democracy and rule of law should be put in place.

Tendencies of the Political Progress for Human Being • With the advent of the networking age and social-political progresses, power will gradually but inexorably return to society from the state. Thus, civil rights will inevitably take precedence over public power. “More governance while less government” has been the common prospect for the political development of human being. Governance rather than government will become increasingly important. Accordingly, the importance of political power will diminish while civil rights will be enhanced instead. Moreover, the sources of public authority will become more diverse: besides power, knowledge, skills, fortune, reputation and especially network will become important sources for authority.

Thanks for your attention！

Power and Authority: New Perspectives