作者：孙诚     

编辑：张致君 校对：熊辩 翻译：周敏

一

夫国之治乱，不在疆域之广狭，而在其统之所在。统之所自明，则国有其本；统之所自乱，则国虽存而理已失矣。

自秦并六国以来，天下归一，号曰“大统”。其所以立者，非出于众之共议，乃出于兵力之征服；非基于民之授权，乃伪托“天命”之传承。故其统也，自上而下，君为国主，民为国属，寰宇之内皆归君之“大一统”。此数千年之常也。

及清室将终，政衰纲弛，内外离心。武昌辛亥一举，各省之民群起独立。于是天下之权，不复统于一人，而分在诸省。是时也，旧统既绝，而新统未立。

然诸省既起，不相攻伐以自立，乃相与议，建政府于南京，定约法以统之。其所以成国者，非一人之力，乃诸省之合意；其所以为统者，非承清廷之余绪，乃创制之新统。

故民国之初，其统为创制之统也。其权自下而上，其国由众而成。中央非先于地方，乃地方所共立；国家非一体之自然，乃众体之所合。是其义，与古之大一统之制，判然有别。

二

既而政局未定，权争日炽。宋教仁既死，议会之路遂阻；二次革命既败，地方之势大减。袁氏专权，改约法，僭帝号，统已失其根本。然此时犹未绝也，诸方争之，尚曰“法统”，是其统虽伤，而犹为天下所认。

及袁死之后，黎元洪复约法，开国会，谓之“法统重光”。然兵权在外，政出多门，制度虽存，不能制权。南北对峙，虽曰“护法”，而实以兵争。

于是复有联省自治之议，欲因地方之势，以成分权之制；又有民国十二年宪法之立，虽无“联邦”明文，而有联邦之实。惜乎悍将横行于北、党军虎视于南。民国十三年，北京政变起。旧政府覆，国会废，宪制尽坏。其后之政，不复以约法为归，不复以国会为本。

自是以后，法统不复为争，而为弃矣。国虽名存，而统实已绝。其后天下之政，皆出于权力之所据，而非制度之所立，是为无法统之世也。

三

国民党改组，立党以统政，建政府于广州，以组织为本，以纪律为用。北伐既起，党军兵锋所至，诸省纳入其制。国家之成，不复由诸省之共建，而由一党之整合；政治之行，不复出于宪制，而出于组织之令。是则党国之制成矣。

其时国共原非相争之党，本处一体之中，然其趋向有异。共匪之术，尤重“无产阶级专政”，其势更趋极权。民国十六年清党起，然党国之制，固已先立，不因清党而终。

既而统一既成，“训政”以行。权归于党，政出于上，地方不复为主体，渐为行政之区。抗战军兴，动员益广，权力益集。其间虽有宪草之议，而未尝行之。国之形存，而统未复也。

及战后，乃制定宪法，于民国三十六年施行，是为第二法统。然其源不在诸省之合意，而在一统之创制。既而共祸日炽，军务孔亟，于是戡乱之例出，宪法之用限，权复归一。

四

未几九州陆沉，国府迁台，疆域虽缩，而统犹存。中央之政，久不改选，号曰“万年国会”；而地方之选，尚得举行。于是县市之间，政尚可竞，权尚可分。民主之萌，不出于中央，而生于地方，駸駸乎辛亥之遗意。其间，士民不甘久抑，或以言论争之，或以选举进之，抗争不辍，积势成流。

由是民权渐张，戒严乃解。及解严之后，总统直选，权归于民。至民国八十九年以后，政党轮替，制度乃定。是则国家之统，复由单一而归多元，由组织而归民意矣。

综观民国之史，可为数段：

其始也，创制而立；

其中也，侵蚀而乱；

其断也，北京政变；

其后也，无法统之世；

继之者，党国之制；

转之者，第二法统；

而成之者，台湾之民。

五

夫民国既起于诸省之独立，则地方为国之本，而非国之属。国家之建，由其合也；法统之立，由其始也。若其统不在，则其合可解。故知国家非不可分之理。地方自为其政，或为联邦，或各独立，皆有其理。此非乱之说也，乃本之论也。

后之论者，或执一统为当然，不问其所由；或以强力为正当，不察其所本。不知民国之义，在其创制，而不在其统一；在其合意，而不在其集中。

明其所自，则知其所归；识其所本，则辨其所正。

是为民国之史也。

六

民国之统既辨，又有一说不可不明：

共匪尝据地而建政，僭号“苏维埃共和国”；又尝于民国三十五年力主联邦之制。然其虽以“独立”“联邦”为名，实则大异于二者本义。

盖共匪肆行残虐，其所本邪说，主以“先锋队”行“行“无产阶级专政”极权，欲推之于天下。是则其所谓“独立”“联邦”，乃求其极权一统之术也，与分治奚啻云泥。且共匪但据一地，必行列宁、商君之术，其酷政百倍于赢秦，故无论其主“分治”“统一”，皆为僭伪。有识君子，不可不察之。

民国一百十五年，岁在丙午。

孟夏吉日，书于对岫斋。

On the Legal Tradition of the Republic of China

Author: Sun Cheng

Editor: Zhang Zhijun Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Zhou Min

I

The order or chaos of a nation depends not on the breadth of its territory, but on the location of its Legal Tradition (fǎtǒng). When the origin of this tradition is clear, the nation has its foundation; when it is in disarray, the nation may exist in name, but its governing principles are lost.

Since the Qin dynasty unified the Six States, the world came under a single rule known as “The Grand Unification” (Dà Yītǒng). This was established not through public deliberation, but through military conquest; it was based not on a mandate from the people, but on the false claim of a “Heavenly Mandate.” Thus, its authority was top-down: the monarch was the master of the state, and the people were his subjects. For thousands of years, this was the norm.

As the Qing dynasty neared its end, governance decayed and social order unraveled. With the Wuchang Uprising, the people of various provinces rose in independence. Consequently, the power of the world was no longer concentrated in one person but distributed among the provinces. At that moment, the old tradition had ended, and the new had yet to be established.

Yet, having risen, the provinces did not attack one another to remain isolated. Instead, they deliberated together, established a government in Nanjing, and enacted a Provisional Constitution to govern it. The formation of the state was not the work of one man, but the consensus of the provinces. Its legitimacy did not derive from the remnants of the Qing court, but from a newly created constitutional tradition.

Thus, at the dawn of the Republic, its tradition was one of original creation. Power flowed from the bottom up; the nation was formed by the collective. The central government did not precede the local; it was jointly established by the local. The state was not a natural monolith but a union of diverse entities. In this essence, it was fundamentally different from the ancient system of “Grand Unification.”

II

Soon, the political situation became unstable and power struggles intensified. Following the death of Song Jiaoren, the path of parliament was blocked; after the failure of the Second Revolution, the influence of local provinces was greatly diminished. Yuan Shikai usurped power, altered the constitution, and claimed the title of Emperor, causing the Legal Tradition to lose its footing. Yet, it was not yet severed; various factions fought for it under the banner of “Legal Tradition” (fǎtǒng), meaning that although the tradition was wounded, it was still recognized by the world.

After Yuan’s death, Li Yuanhong restored the Provisional Constitution and reopened Parliament, an event called the “Resurgence of the Legal Tradition.” However, military power remained in the hands of warlords, and policies came from many competing doors. Though the system existed, it could not restrain power. North and South stood in opposition; though they claimed to “Protect the Law,” they were in truth fighting for dominance.

Then came the proposal for “Federated Self-Governance” (Liánshěng Zìzhì), seeking to use local power to form a system of checks and balances. This was followed by the Constitution of 1923, which, though lacking the word “Federal,” possessed the substance of a federation. Alas, fierce generals ran rampant in the North, and the Party Army watched hungrily from the South. In 1924 (the 13th year of the Republic), the Beijing Coup occurred. The old government was toppled, Parliament was abolished, and the constitutional system was completely destroyed. Subsequent governance no longer looked to the Provisional Constitution as its guide or Parliament as its foundation.

From then on, the Legal Tradition was no longer fought for; it was abandoned. Though the name of the nation remained, its tradition was effectively severed. Thereafter, the governance of the land was based on seized power rather than established institutions. This was an era without a Legal Tradition.

III

The Kuomintang (KMT) underwent reorganization, establishing a party-led administration in Guangzhou, based on organization and discipline. When the Northern Expedition began, wherever the Party Army reached, those provinces were integrated into its system. The formation of the state was no longer a joint construction by the provinces, but an integration by a single party. Politics was no longer conducted through constitutionalism, but through organizational mandates. Thus, the Party-State system was formed.

At that time, the Nationalists and Communists were not yet opposing parties but were part of the same body, though their inclinations differed. The Communist “bandits” emphasized the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” a trend toward total power. Although the “Purge of the Party” occurred in 1927, the Party-State system had already been established and did not end with the purge.

Once unification was achieved, “Political Tutelage” (Xùnzhèng) was implemented. Power resided in the Party, and orders came from the top. The provinces were no longer sovereign subjects but gradually became mere administrative districts. When the War of Resistance against Japan broke out, mobilization expanded and power became even more centralized. Though there were discussions of a draft constitution, it was never enacted. The form of the nation remained, but the tradition was not yet restored.

After the war, a Constitution was finally enacted and implemented in 1947 (the 36th year of the Republic). This is known as the Second Legal Tradition. However, its source was not the consensus of the provinces, but a centralized creation. Soon, the Communist calamity intensified, and military affairs became urgent. The “Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion” were enacted, limiting the application of the Constitution, and power once again returned to a single source.

IV

Before long, the mainland fell, and the National Government moved to Taiwan. Though the territory shrank, the Legal Tradition survived. At the center, the legislature was not re-elected for a long time, becoming known as the “Ten-Thousand-Year Parliament.” Yet, local elections were still held. Thus, at the county and city levels, politics remained competitive and power remained divided. The seeds of democracy did not sprout from the center but grew from the local level, echoing the original spirit of the 1911 Revolution. During this time, the people refused to be suppressed; they fought through speech and advanced through elections, creating a steady current of resistance.

Because of this, civil rights gradually expanded, and Martial Law was eventually lifted. Following the end of Martial Law, the President was directly elected, and power returned to the people. After the year 2000 (the 89th year of the Republic), the peaceful transfer of power between parties occurred, and the system was finalized. Thus, the tradition of the nation returned from a single entity to plurality, and from organization back to the will of the people.

A broad view of the Republic’s history reveals several stages:

Beginning: Established through original constitutional creation;

Middle: Eroded and thrown into chaos;

Severance: The Beijing Coup;

Aftermath: An era without a Legal Tradition;

Succession: The Party-State system;

Transition: The Second Legal Tradition;

Culmination: Realized by the people of Taiwan.

V

Since the Republic originated from the independence of various provinces, the local regions are the foundation of the nation, not its subordinates. The construction of the state comes from their union; the establishment of the Legal Tradition comes from its origin. If the tradition no longer exists, the union can be dissolved. Therefore, one must know that a nation is not “indivisible” by some absolute principle. For local regions to govern themselves—whether as a federation or as independent entities—is a logical conclusion. This is not a theory of chaos, but a theory of returning to the source.

Later commentators often take “unification” as a given without questioning its origin, or view “might” as “right” without examining its basis. They fail to understand that the meaning of the Republic lies in its original creation, not its unification; in consensus, not in centralization.

By clarifying the origin, we know the destination; by recognizing the foundation, we distinguish what is legitimate. This is the history of the Republic.

VI

Having clarified the Legal Tradition of the Republic, one more point must be made clear: The Communist bandits once occupied land to build a regime, usurping the title “Soviet Republic”; they also strongly advocated for a federal system in 1946. However, though they used the names “Independence” and “Federalism,” their reality was the opposite of the true meaning of these terms.

The Communist bandits practice extreme cruelty. Their ideology is based on a “vanguard” exercising a totalitarian “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” seeking to impose it upon the whole world. Therefore, their so-called “independence” or “federalism” are merely tactics to achieve totalitarian unification—they are as different from true decentralized governance as clouds are from mud. Furthermore, wherever the Communists occupy a territory, they inevitably implement the methods of Lenin and Lord Shang. Their tyrannical rule is a hundred times more cruel than that of the Qin dynasty. Thus, whether they advocate for “division” or “unification,” it is all a fraudulent usurpation. A person of insight must perceive this.

Republic of China, Year 115 (2026), Year of Bing-Wu. Written on an auspicious day in early summer, at the Duixiu Studio.