Now when it comes to the change of every system, there should also be a limit to change, and it should not be changed as it pleases.
What is precious is to find its unchanging origin in the midst of change, which is the so-called historical tradition. The longer the tradition, the greater the reliability of this source. In other words, its vitality is stronger.
As far as China's past political theory is concerned, the power of prime minister must be bad if it is given to the emperor, and there is no objective standard for employing people, so it must be bad. The Jiupin Zhongzheng system originally wanted to set an objective standard for the employment of people at that time, but it still did not lose the traditional spirit that this system should have. But then it became a pro-family, and the criteria for finding talents were virtually limited to a small range of the family, which was a big mistake.
Excerpted from the second lecture of Qian Mu's "Political Gains and Losses in China's Past Dynasties" "Tang Dynasty and Tang Dynasty Examination System".
Mr. Qian Mu once again went back to the prime minister's power.
It can be seen that my understanding of Mr. Qian is not bad, and he has always believed that the setting of prime ministers from the Shang Dynasty to the Han Dynasty is the most ideal administrative structure model that he has identified.
I have talked much more about the power of the prime minister than Mr. Chin.
In fact, the prime minister only exists in a very small period of history, and in this very rare period, there is also a prime minister and a prime minister at the same time. The prime minister is the master, and the prime minister is the auxiliary and deputy. More often, the prime minister is no longer set up, it is empty, and the prime minister is used to exercise his power.
Therefore, in later generations, it is difficult to figure out the difference between the prime minister and the prime minister.
Secondly, the two prime ministers with the highest status and the greatest power in history, one is Guan Zhong and the other is Shang Ying. Since then, there has been no comparison. Even these two people do not have the decision-making and executive power that controls the entire executive power.
Guan Zhong's power may have been greater, because Duke Qi Huan was basically a prince who only enjoyed honor and fame in his own affairs. When Shang Ying was in charge, first, he did not have the name of prime minister or prime minister, and second, the prince Qin Xiaogong he served was not a hands-off shopkeeper.
Shang Ying did hold a certain amount of military power and administrative power over the entire Qin state. But this kind of mastery is all under the authorization of Qin Xiaogong, Shang Ying's body is actually covered with a thread, and this thread is led by Qin Xiaogong. At that time, the power of supervision was not complete, and almost all of it was in the hands of the king.
As for the future, Lü Buwei seems to be a powerful prime minister named Xiangbang. But in fact, at this time, the military power of the Qin State had been divided into Taiwei, and there was a relatively complete supervision system, and the supervision power was held by the imperial historian.
Although this supervisory power cannot supervise the Prime Minister's Office, after all, it can supervise the Prime Minister's Office.
After Li Si and the Qin State became the Qin Dynasty, Qin Shi Huang simply did not have a prime minister, and at this time, the weakening of the prime minister's power was already very obvious.
As for the Han Dynasty, after Xiao He and Cao Shen, although there were three dukes, the three dukes did not receive real power. The prime minister or prime minister, even including the lieutenant, has long been not actually appointed, and has only become a folk saying. The actual administrative power has been granted to the lower grades.
More importantly, there is the third point of understanding.
Mr. Qian Mu's understanding of the power of the prime minister seems to be the power of the prime minister. That is, the prime minister of the state military power, the administrative army and the supervisory power.
In fact, in Chinese history, there were indeed prime ministers or prime ministers who held all three powers at the same time. For example, Cao Cao, such as Zhuge Liang, such as Sima Yi, such as Li Yuan. Several people can also be listed.
The history behind these people, needless to say, is clear to everyone at a glance, and it is the result of the three powers of one prime minister.
They can't help but not usurp power, if a person is the prime minister, then he is not the prime minister, but the actual emperor. It is really as Mr. Qian Mu said, even the emperor must obey his orders and be led by him.
This situation is completely different from the constitutional monarchy of later generations.
Even if it is a constitutional monarchy in later generations, I am afraid that it can only exist in relatively small countries such as Britain and Japan. If it had existed in a big country, I am afraid it would have been subverted long ago. In this regard, the major powers absolutely do not dare to experiment.
For example, China's Qing Dynasty also discussed constitutional monarchy, and after discussing it for a period of time, it was tantamount to telling the people of the whole country that the Qing court no longer had the confidence to lead the country well and was preparing to retreat. So overnight, all localities declared their independence, and without waiting for the results of the negotiations on a constitutional monarchy, they collapsed directly.
Of course, Mr. Qian Mu said, "In terms of China's past political theory, it must be bad for the emperor to give the power of prime minister," which may also be interpreted in another way. That is to say, the separation of imperial power and relative power is scientific, and the imperial power to cut and seize relative power is a destruction of the separation of powers, which will naturally lead to bad results.
This trend has indeed existed in Chinese politics in the past dynasties, and the emperors of successive dynasties have been sparing no effort to reduce power. Further, China's emperors have been sparing no effort to wedge the entire administrative power.
I emphasize here that the entire executive power is distinct from the decision-making power.
I believe that under the monarchy, what the emperor should control is decision-making power, that is, the Imperial Council as the highest decision-making body. This decision-making body controls three major powers, one is the executive power, the second is the military power, and the third is the supervisory power.
The three powers that were separated under the Imperial Council were actually the three major administrative powers. Military power and supervisory power are both state administrative powers in a broad sense. What is controlled by the prime minister or the state government is the administrative power of the state in a narrow sense, which is the administrative power in addition to the military power and the supervisory power.
The way in which the Imperial Council controls the three executive powers is through decision-making. The three executive powers are responsible for the Imperial Council in the form of execution.
In fact, successive emperors have been snatching the three major administrative powers in the lower positions. Snatch the military administrative power from the Taiwei, seize the administrative power from the prime minister, and seize the supervisory power from the Imperial Historian or the Imperial Historical Observatory.
What should I do if I snatch it away? It is still necessary to hand over the management to a certain person or a few or several departments.
And the person who was temporarily handed over, one, is not rightly named. Second, it must be to appoint others. Third, power is once again centralized.
That's the worst thing.
Mr. Qian went on to say, "There is no objective standard for employing people, and they must be bad." ”
History has proven that this is also a major lesson of the political system of successive dynasties. The original starting point of the Jiupin Zhongzheng system was to select talents, which is the election system that Mr. Qian said. Later, it developed to the grading of political performance.
And the former, because it is not an objective criterion, but a subjective criterion. The starting point is wrong, and the result is naturally wrong. As for the grade system that has developed into the first grade, it has become a historical progress.
The establishment of the system, sometimes, is indeed so wrong.