My Photo


  • Michael Moorcock
    "a genuine philosophy for the 21st century"
  • Mary Midgley
    "this matters - read it!"
  • Kendall Walton
    "wonderfully refreshing and inventive"


Game Design

Blog powered by Typepad

« World of Activisioncraft | Main | Emotions of Play Revisited »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I love the use of the passive voice all through the section on the Mandate of Heaven.

Politics is active. Politics is about individuals. Politics is about imposing one's will on others, through any and all available mechanisms. It is all very well that the overthrow of the Emperor is mandated, but who mandates it? More importantly, who gets shot by the army while leading the attempt to overthrow, if the army stays loyal? Which generals form a military government, if the army is in on the overthrowing? Or do the generals give orders to kill anyone who shows dissent if (as usual) opinion in the ranks is split? In short, who bells the cat?

"It is all very well that the overthrow of the Emperor is mandated, but who mandates it?"

Well, in ancient Chinese politics: someone with a large enough army to have a shot at overthrowing the ruling dynasty. ;) And not uncoincidentally, someone who some time shortly after victory will be founding the new ruling dynasty.

Pragmatically, during the times of stability, everyone remained loyal. When times got tough, if the ruling dynasty failed in their duty to the people, the nobles who were most distressed would be the one to take action. In this respect, having a hierarchical power structure was an asset; the "farmer on the street" rarely initiated a revolution - at least until the Communist revolution of 1912.

But it the modern world, democracy offers less violent solutions, of course, which I see as a positive step. :)

Nobles overthrowing the ruling dynasty work tolerably well where you have an area with several noble houses of roughly equal strength - the ruler has peers, and those peers come under the ruler's scope.

In most modern countries, including representative democracies, that is not the case. The ruling body is the single most powerful entity within the nation's borders, because they have control over the direction given to the single army and single police force, along with the laws detailing who can show dissent and in what forms. This body has no peers within national borders that can exert sufficient force to dislodge it, unless the army revolts.

Is democracy a solution? I'm not sure. It appears to be a meta-stable form of government, perched precariously at the top of a hill, assailed from all sides by special interests. The form that survives in most so-called democracies is a caricature of Democracy. Consider the UK as an example, where we are ruled by people chosen by a small fraction of the population. Those rulers then choose their own leaders, and those leaders have huge personal power due to the leaders carefully eroding the checks and balances on their use of governmental power, and get to choose the rewards for the cronies who put them at the top. This is democracy?


In feudal China, the arrangement of the Empire was such as to always ensure a division of power between many families - the geography covered was so vast there was no other way to proceed. This also helped with the overall political stability.

I appreciate your objection to the way that the situation in the UK is called "democracy" - but we as the electorate could work influence if we could reach some agreement as to what the point-of-change would be.

One of the problems is that many people do not want to be involved in politics, which thus yields most of the power to the professional politicians.

The real problem, in my opinion, is not domestic policy (as one can make the electorate care deeply about this) but foreign policy - where an attitude of "what do I know about country X" often leads to people 'giving way' to whatever politicians ask for. This is when it is important to have other politicians dissent.

I don't have an answer for how to resolve this, as it is unreasonable to expect every member of the electorate to understand global politics (a subject severely open to interpretation anyway). The media could certainly help with this - in fact, those that hold the greatest influence over the media arguably hold the greatest influence altogether.

Remember when Tony Blair had to get the blessing of Rupert Murdoch before he could be elected...?

Alas, I'm out of time. We will doubtless talk more of such things. ;)


The Japanese had a similar system - directly influenced by at-the-time superior Chinese culture. Their Mandate of Heaven was, however, framed as a direct lineage from Ameratsu. This turned an early power-grab by a large clan into a legitimate dynasty, and established a tripartite power system - Emperor, samurai and monks.
Because the Japanese, not least the samurai, were very religious this was fairly stable - until the advent of Buddhism. Buddhism was embraced by the Emperors near the end of the first millenium (Gregorian), and Buddha was conflated with the Shinto kami. So the mandate was maintained.
UNTIL certain Chinese educated monks started Buddhist schools that rejected synergy with Shintoism. Political turmoil ensued, fueled by a kind of Buddhist socialist movement (Ikko Ikki) that saw military power wielded by peasants for the first time. The 'police' of the state, the samurai families, eventually produced a warlord, Oda Nobunaga, who 'pacified' the country. However, he used the defeated purist Buddhist sects to legitimise a direct grab for power by circumventing the Shinto-based Mandate of Heaven - it was still recognised, but held no weight. So was established the Shogunate, sidelining the Emperors for hundreds of years until the resurgence of Shintoism fueled the Meiji restoration, prompted by the opening of Japan by the Yanks.

The point of the story is that Mandate from Heaven is really a mandate from the belief system of the people. When one side or another swayed this in favour of their cause, they gained the upper hand.
So I disagree that rulers need to seek the best for their people to maintain their mandate. They instead need to supply or subvert a belief about what is best, and serve that. The War on Terror, that old chestnut.
The problem then is that people may not even know that they need to assert their rights, they may become willing partners. And in any issue of truth, how do we seek the true answer to enlighten the deceived? Isn't majority rule the name of the game? Once they get most people believing something, it has become their truth, and your truth is just a (probably crazy) lone voice of dissent.

zenBen: thanks for sharing this parallel story about the Japanese "mandate"; I'm broadly familiar with Japanese history, but you paint a neat account here.

"The point of the story is that Mandate from Heaven is really a mandate from the belief system of the people."

I don't disagree; the same is true of any mandate - the democratic mandate of the people is also underlain by a belief system.

"So I disagree that rulers need to seek the best for their people to maintain their mandate."

Well in the Chinese system (and in India) this forms part of the belief system! :) I don't know that your historical account of the Japanese system necessarily contradicts this element either.

As a practical matter, any ruler who abuses their people will not last in the long term, irrespective of how they acquire their mandate.

Best wishes!

"As a practical matter, any ruler who abuses their people will not last in the long term, irrespective of how they acquire their mandate."

So you are roundly rejecting the possibility of an Orwellian state where the greater good and individual liberty are both quashed, ostensibly in the name of higher state concerns (like national security)?

Because that is what I am talking about when I say that a government can obtain a mandate by offering the people intangibles, rather than a clear effort to improve their lot.

zenBen: I take your point - this subtlety was lost on my reading your first comment. Of course, this does happen - Orwell was fictionalising Stalin's Russia, after all.

Yet, I still believe: one cannot maintain a mandate through such methods for long. China maintained long dynasties precisely because the care of the people was a de facto part of their mandate. A mandate achieved through manipulation does not, I believe, weather so well.

Of course, this belief expresses an optimism that no-one else need share. ;)

Thanks for the clarification!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)