The question of whether it is the people or the law that holds greater power has been a long-standing issue, both in historical and contemporary contexts. To cite ancient China as an example, over thousands of years, where the emperor was supreme, the role of law was never denied. For instance, during the Ming Dynasty, a period marked by the emperor's immense authority, the Great Ming Code was introduced to "guide the people with proper rites and govern the unruly with laws". It can be seen from here that the law has always been a crucial cornerstone of Chinese civilization.
However, in the relationship between the people and the law, whether in historical or contemporary contexts, these two aspects are often seen as separate. Either the law is greater than the people, or the reverse. Laws are made by people and are meant to serve humanity. This is a traditional basic understanding in Chinese society. Yet, very few people mention that the relationship between the people and the law is not necessarily a binary opposition, but rather, it can be unified and integrated into a single whole.
In academic theory, legal rights are often interpreted as "legal rightism" or "right-centrism”, which emphasizes a society, economy, or politics centered around legal rights. In the West, legal rights are considered a legal philosophy that focuses on individual or group rights, advocating that legal systems prioritize the protection of individual rights such as property, freedom, and equality. The emphasis, therefore, is placed on protecting individual power. Under this basic understanding, law and power remain separate; the law is merely seen as a tool that covers and supports individual rights.
Compared to Western pragmatic philosophy, Marxism offers a further advancement in understanding this issue. Marxism views law as a part of the superstructure, carrying ideological significance, but with a clear class bias, serving the interests of the ruling class. Generally speaking, Marxist attitude toward law and legal rights is clearly critical. However, Marx still separates law from power, viewing them as a social relationship of utilization, where law serves the interests of a certain segment of society.
During China's reform and opening-up process, there was a movement toward streamlining administration and delegating power. As a result, some scholars in the Chinese academic community became concerned about the erosion of authority and proposed a theory known as "neoauthoritarianism". Although the term "neoauthoritarianism" may appear similar to "legal rights" on the surface, its core political ideology is actually not closely related to law. It places greater emphasis on authority and order, and even, to some extent, rejects freedom, democracy, and equality. It advocates for centralization and unity, and embraces collectivist and nationalist values. Therefore, the main arguments of neoauthoritarianism have little actual connection with the relationship between individuals and the law. At most, the law is invoked in name only.
China is a transitional and developing society moving from a lower to a higher stage. One cannot deny that the concentration of power is indeed an issue. It is a social reality that in just a few short years or a few decades, hundreds of millions of Chinese farmers have migrated from rural areas to cities. Such a dramatic transformation in social structure, along with emerging class contradictions and conflicts, inevitably manifests at the societal level, thereby generating theoretical demands and challenges for ideological reconstruction. This is a complex reality that involves both the relationship between individuals and the law, as well as with ideology. Faced with such a reality, discussing the issue without rational analysis reduces it to a purely ideological matter, which appears to be a tangle of blind belief. Such oversimplification does little to contribute to the development of the country’s future society.
East Asian societies have traditionally been Confucian, and Confucianism places particular emphasis on balance that opposes both excess and deficiency, as the Confucian classic Analects says, “going too far is as bad as not going far enough”. East Asian society is vast, with a huge population and numerous contradictions, so the key issue becomes how one can achieve balance. In reality, true balance has never been achieved, nor is it realistically achievable. Confucian thought has largely relied on persuasive ethical education embedded within rural communities to try to create a sense of balance. While this may have had some effect in smaller social settings, such as villages or small towns, China’s historical trajectory has already shown that, on a large societal scale, Confucianism has not been a successful solution.
The issue with Confucianism lies in its overestimation of ethical transformation and its neglect of the complexity of human nature, such as selfishness and greed. As a result, the so-called "benevolent governance" that Confucianism advocates has evolved into a grand utopia. While the Confucian Doctrine of the Mean emphasizes balance, in the face of intense social conflict, its conservative core and the lack of transformative drive become significant flaws, leading to clear extremities. In contrast, Marxist emphasis on the philosophy of struggle takes the issue to another extreme. Although it represents a major breakthrough compared to Confucianism, breaking away from traditional conservatism and fostering societal change, it is unstable. The philosophy of struggle can easily cause society to lose its balance. From the perspective of state governance, the ultimate goal of a large society has always been moderation and balance. In such a society, the maxim “the noble man follows the mean, while the petty man deviates from it” has been a normal social phenomenon throughout history. Because of this, stability and balance remain the primary goals in national governance.
As is well known, Singapore was once seen as a model during China’s reform process. This island-nation's approach to national governance has two distinct characteristics: one is governance by wise leaders, and the other is the emphasis on the rule of law. Singapore still retains the ancient practice of corporal punishment, such as caning, to maintain the deterrent effect of its laws. Its founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, expressed the view that he did not believe ordinary voters could understand complex issues, and it was the elites who must make decisions for the national interest. Lee’s approach was to rely on the rule of law. He emphasized that the rule of law was the fundamental reason for Singapore’s success, asserting that the law must be clear, transparent, and predictable in order to attract investment, maintain order, and build trust. While the governance of a small country may not serve as a broad model, it can certainly be an example. Lee’s views on law are centered on the utility and significance of law, as well as its strong support for governance by wise leaders.
The reason Confucianism was not successful historically is actually the same as the reason why Confucius himself was not unsuccessful, and that is the inability to resolve the key contradiction, namely, the concentration of power. Over time, Confucian thought became increasingly hypocritical, ultimately becoming merely a formal system that survives only in cultural form. Confucianism is, in fact, a beautiful theoretical framework, but it was not successful in history, nor was it truly effective. It was trapped in the quagmire of power, unable to break free, and lacked the wisdom to do so.
Indeed, power is a major issue in maintaining social balance. China’s long history can be seen as an empirical case of state governance, demonstrating that the concentration of power does not always lead to stability and peace. This is because power is a highly coveted social resource. To solve this classic problem, my view is that only by transferring power to the legal system, integrating people and law, and transitioning to a space of legal rights, can a solution be found. Power should be derived from law, with law as the foundation of power. This approach expands the space of power by transforming power into a legal construct. Such an integrated legal rights space essentially virtualizes power, shifting it from people to law. As a result, it can generate greater support from society, bringing about stability and balance. This transfer of power, the creation of a power space, and the reconstruction of power's core based on law is what I call “neo-legal-rightsism”.
As a society transitioning from a lower to a higher stage, and making the leap from the Third World to the First World, the ideological core of social construction and social management should be neo-legal-rightsism. Singapore is a small, compact society, so it has implemented this idea in a relatively simple form. However, in larger societies, the effective practice of this concept requires a stronger reliance on theoretical foundations and exploration. The goal is to create societal consensus and support, and through effective theoretical construction, achieve long-term stability and balance in society.
It should be noted that neo-legal-rightsism cannot be considered a major theoretical innovation, but it certainly involves elements of reference, change, adjustment, and extension. In terms of theoretical comparison, its nature still differs. However, as the changing dynamics on the world political stage have shown, to a certain extent, politics is more about rhetoric than academic theory. In this sense, while the views of neo-legal-rightsism may not be capable of ensuring that the ships sailing in the vast ocean do not capsize, they can serve like a lighthouse on a rock, occasionally shedding light on a new path in subtle ways. It is nothing more than that.
