On Neo-legal-rightsism

The question of whether people or the law holds more power has been a longstanding debate. Typically, they are viewed as separate; either the law prevails over the people or vice versa. However, this relationship is not a simple opposition; rather, it can be seen as a unified whole, with laws created by people to serve humanity.

In the West, legal rights focus on individual or group rights, with legal systems prioritizing the protection of property, freedom, and equality. Here, law and power are seen as separate, with law merely supporting individual rights. In contrast, Marxism advances this view by seeing law as part of the superstructure, serving the ideological interests of the ruling class. Marxism is critical of law, viewing it not as neutral, but as a tool that supports specific societal interests, though it still separates law from power.

In the case of China, it is a transitional society in the process of moving from a lower to a higher stage of development. The concentration of power is undeniably a significant issue in this context. Over the past few decades, the massive migration of hundreds of millions of Chinese farmers from rural areas to cities has led to a profound transformation in the social structure. This dramatic shift, along with emerging class contradictions and conflicts, inevitably manifests at the societal level, creating new theoretical demands and challenges for ideological reconstruction. This is a complex reality that not only involves the relationship between individuals and the law but also intersects with broader ideological concerns.

In general, East Asian societies, shaped by Confucianism, emphasize balance, as expressed in the Analects: “going too far is as bad as not going far enough.” Given the region’s vast population and contradictions, achieving balance is the key issue. However, true balance has never been realized and may not be feasible. Confucianism relied on ethical education in rural communities to foster balance, but it has proven insufficient on a larger societal scale. The issue with Confucianism lies in its overemphasis on ethical transformation and neglect of human nature’s complexities, such as selfishness and greed. Its conservative core and lack of transformative power become significant flaws in times of social conflict. In contrast, Marxism’s philosophy of struggle pushes the issue to an extreme, promoting societal change but destabilizing balance. Ultimately, the goal for such societies remains moderation and balance, as reflected in the ancient Chinese maxim, “the noble man follows the mean, while the petty man deviates from it”. Stability and balance are thus central to national governance.

In the past decades, Singapore was once seen as a model during China’s reform process, with its national governance characterized by two key features: rule by wise leaders and strong emphasis on the rule of law. The island-nation retains practices like corporal punishment, such as caning, to maintain legal deterrence. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father, believed ordinary voters could not grasp complex issues, so decisions should be made by elites for the national interest. He argued that the rule of law was crucial to Singapore’s success, emphasizing that laws must be clear, transparent, and predictable to attract investment, maintain order, and build trust. While Singapore’s model may not be universally applicable, it provides an example of governance supported by law and wise leadership.

Confucianism’s historical failure, like Confucius’ own lack of success, lies in its inability to resolve the key issue: the concentration of power. Over time, Confucian thought became increasingly hollow, reduced to a formal system that survives only in cultural form. Though it presents a beautiful theoretical framework, it failed to effectively address the concentration of power and lacked the wisdom to overcome it. Power is central to maintaining social balance. China’s long history demonstrates that concentrated power does not always lead to stability, as power is a highly coveted resource. The solution, in my view, lies in transferring power to the legal system, integrating people and law, and shifting to a legal rights framework. Power should derive from law, with law as its foundation. This approach transforms power into a legal construct, virtualizing it and shifting it from people to law. As a result, it gains greater societal support, fostering stability and balance. This transfer and restructuring of power within the legal system is what I call “neo-legal-rightsism”.

As a society transitioning from the Third World to the First, the ideological core of social construction and management should be neo-legal-rightsism. While Singapore has implemented this concept in a simpler form, larger societies require a stronger theoretical foundation and exploration for effective practice. The goal is to create societal consensus and support, achieving long-term stability and balance through effective theoretical construction.

Neo-legal-rightsism may not be a groundbreaking theoretical innovation, but it involves elements of adaptation and extension. Politically, as global dynamics show, politics often relies more on rhetoric than academic theory. While neo-legal-rightsism may not ensure stability, it can serve as a guiding light, occasionally illuminating new paths in subtle ways.

Have you read?
The World’s Best Medical Schools.
The World’s Best Universities.
The World’s Best International High Schools.
The World’s Best Business Schools.
The World’s Best Fashion Schools.
The World’s Best Hospitality And Hotel Management Schools.