Benevolent Rule

The ancient chinese had a very powerful tool to govern a state. It was called "Ren2 Zheng4" which means "benevolent rule". The innovativeness and cunningness of the ancient Chinese laid in divorcing benevolence exercised in rulership from the true benevolence in the heart. In other words, it is possible to be mean and unscrupulous and yet at the same time be known as a virtuous ruler.

This distinction is possible because a ruler of a state can use wholly different strategies in dealing with those people who have the power to threaten his position and those who would pose no threat to them unless they are united. The former naturally refer to his rivals and those key supporters who wield great power and the latter refer to the common people. In the context of imperial China, a ruler is considered a virtuous ruler if he governed the state diligently and conscientiously, kept taxes low, used upright officials, used the state's resources sparingly and treated the common people well. Notice that all these can be done clinically without a true heart of kindness. Been able to achieve all these does not preclude one from committing other evil acts like killing one's own brothers to gain the throne, exterminating one's supporters along with all their immediate and extended family members to pre-empt them from threatening one's power, etc.

In Chinese history, there were quite a number of emperors who were considered to be virtuous and benevolent rulers though their characters indicated otherwise, like Liu Bang the founder of the Han Dynasty, Zhu Yuanzhang the founder of the Ming Dynasty and the second emperor of the Song Dynasty, Taizong. Liu Bang for example was considered by the common people to be benevolent but he was definitely an unscrupulous person. He killed those generals who helped him conquer China like Han Xin and Ying Bu and during his war with Xiang Yu, the West Conqueror of Chu, he broke the truce and attacked Xiang Yu from the back even "before the ink was dry." There was also a time when he was fleeing on a carriage from Xiang Yu's troops after losing a battle and in order to lighten the load so that he could go faster, he kicked his daughter down the carriage.

Zhu Yuangzhang, the first emperor of the Ming Dynasty was no better and perhaps even more vicious. After becoming emperor he killed most of those followers who helped him to gain power even a childhood friend, the general Xu Da. He once justified to his son, the crown prince that he was just removing all the future threats to his power. Taizong, the second emperor of the Song Dynasty who inherited the throne from his other brother under suspicious circumstances forced his nephew (the eldest son of his older brother) to commit suicide and soon after, the other nephew and Taizong's remaining younger brother died mysteriously.

Despite the calculative cold-blooded nature of these 3 emperors, they were generally considered by historians and the people during their times to be virtuous emperors. Liu Bang abolished the tyrannical Qin laws and was praised by the common people to be a "benevolent ruler". Zhu reduced taxes and aggressively fought corruption (officials who were found guilty of corruption could be skinned alive and their corpses hung for the public to see) and was also considered to be an "enlightened" emperor. There was also a story about Taizong's "benevolence to the people" where he gave coals for free to poor people in the capital during winter so that they could stay warm.

Although Liu Bang and Zhu Yuangzhang killed quite a number of their key followers after they became emperors, they were not all the while so blatantly cruel. When they were still struggling to gain power, Liu Bang and Zhu Yuangzhang were known to be very good leaders who were willing to lower themselves to gain men of talent, treated their followers very well and inspired fierce loyalty (if they had acted as they did after gaining power, they would be deserted long ago). In the present drama serial on Xiang Yu and Liu Bang that I am watching, Zhang Liang the advisor told Liu Bang that "benevolence must always be at the surface. If you demonstrated benevolence but yet nobody sees it, it is useless".

There is no doubt that the political concept of "benevolence rule" is a hypocritical one. It calls for policies and a style of governance that would benefit the most people and gain popular support but yet does not demand a true benevolence of the heart. Yet, history has shown that the strategy of "benevolence rule" has been ultimately beneficial to the country and people because it forced otherwise ambitious and vicious men (if they were otherwise, they would not be at the top of the food chain) to govern diligently and to treat the people well just so that they can consolidate their power. Thus though very hypocritical, the art and strategy of "benevolence rule" when used seriously by rulers does benefit the state. Such is the irony of politics.