Introduction

In 147 B.C., Tian Shu arrived to take his place as Governor of the Commandery of Lu in China. When he arrived, more than one hundred commoners went to protest because the prince, Liu Yu, had seized their property unjustly. Tian reacted with disgust and had twenty of the leaders beaten for their inappropriate boldness. Tian’s actions demonstrated the ancient principle that those who challenged authority in any context would become an example to other would-be rebels through severe punishment. When the prince found out, he was angry with the Governor and decreed that recompense for the beating to be paid from the palace treasury. The dissonance between the Governor and his superior in their perception of the political hierarchy is striking. This interaction raises the question of the form of government of this Golden Age of China.^[1]

The Han Dynasty rose to power in 206 B.C. in the wake of a revolution against the former tyrannical and imperial Dynasty, the Qin. Led by the King of Hanzhong, Liu Bang, Chinese peasants, and generals overthrew the Qin Emperor, Qin Shi Huangdi. Liu Bang was established as the Emperor of the Han Dynasty and founded a new governmental structure that synthesized an imperial rule and democratic principles. Liu Bang’s reforms altered not only the course of the Han Dynasty but also the entirety of Chinese history. For the next four hundred years, the Han Dynasty would see a massive improvement in their economy, landmass, and governmental structure. The Han Dynasty endured until 220 A.D. when a power vacuum allowed three warlords— Cao Cao of Wei, Sun Quan of Wu, and Liu Bei of Shu to create a civil war within the Han Empire. This period, known as The Three Kingdoms Period, would mark the end of the Golden Age of China.

An examination of the Han Dynasty and the unique anocractic structure of government through the development of the social, political, religious, and economic order throughout the Han Dynasty reveals the inadequacy in scholarly understanding of the events that led to the development of institutions in the Han Dynasty. The implications of an examination to these institutions reveal their significance in how the Monarchical or Aristocratic structure of the Han government shifted to anocracy, the adoption of religion through Confucian ideals, and the social benefits gained from both the newfound promotion of natural law as well as the economic benefit to the individual through territorial expansion. Thus, this paper raises questions regarding the connection between governmental structure and reforms to the social, economic, political, and religious order. It also brings to light concerning the validity of a defense of a structural change to government that led to a massive reform. This paper will answer these questions by showing the link between a decrease in monarchical, aristocratic, and tyrannical rule, and the subsequent growth in political and religious freedom, leading to a higher value of the natural and written law that increased societal order and virtue. These changes caused economic expansion by increasing the rights and freedoms of social institutions through governmental reforms. Scholars tend to set the trajectory of their research on affirming the Han government's identity as either monarchical or aristocratic in nature, with the restoration of a centralized government explaining the prosperity and expansion of the Han Dynasty.^[2] This paper will seek to prove that the growth and opulence of the Han Dynasty came from an anocratic shift in political institutions, which resulted in the development and success of social, religious, and economic institutions. The framework of anocracy, then, shall focus on how the centralized government demonstrated elements of representative government in an imperial regime, thus allowing for principles such as natural law and Confucian political thought to flourish. This phenomenon was unique to the Han Dynasty and was not possible under the previous monarchy, the Qin Dynasty.

Previous to this paper, scholarship has evaluated the political status of the government of Han China in the context of a single influencing factor (social, political, economic, or religious). However, there has not been a holistic evaluation of these four factors and their influence on the governmental structure of the Han government. Some have proposed that the Han Dynasty was a pure monarchy due to the heavily centralized government and the sovereign power of the emperor.^[3] Others have countered this with the argument that the Han Dynasty was an aristocracy, due to the hierarchical nature of the arrangement of the government into layers of officials.^[4] Both of these have been simplified by scholars to argue that Han China was an early form of feudalism, with vassal states and an aristocratic government structure.^[5] This paper will argue that a survey of social, political, economic, and religious factors leads to the conclusion that the Han Dynasty was an anocracy. The Golden Age of China was supported by a hierarchical structure of government that was marked by unprecedented political freedom for all of the populace and was distinct from the previous dynasties through civil freedom, protections and the undermining of the absolute authority of the emperor and other officials in a reconstructed governmental system.

The Han Dynasty has long been regarded as the Golden Age of China, changing the structure of the imperial government and paving a path for a better China. While these words certainly give Han China credit for its significant achievements, the West tends to disregard the significance and nuance of the changes between the Qin and Han Dynasty. Through the rise of previously banned schools of thought, political law influenced the social fabric of China, which introduced religious principles and ideals such as Confucianism. This moral structure provided society with a moral structure that governed power structures within the civil and political realm and influenced how individual morality and virtue. These drastic changes allowed for the rise of political agency, promoting not only social virtues but also economic expansion and development through market liberalization. This economic growth led to the opening of the Silk Road, and a period of immense wealth and territorial expansion. This brought about what scholars have coined the “Golden Age of Ancient China.” The Golden Age is marked by the governmental structure of the Han Dynasty, which shifted away from imperialistic rule to a society primarily governed by representatives of the people, or by the people themselves. The shift in the role of the emperor from an active administrative function to a role with nominal power created a political environment that allowed for politically, religiously, and economically motivated criticism of the emperor, effectively ending the monarchical power of the emperor to rule with full sovereign power. This shift marked a distinctly anocratic beginning to the Han Dynasty, which allowed for the rise of personal freedom and opened the Chinese to new forms of political thought, religious liberty, social freedoms, and economic prosperity.

Historical Narrative

To understand the rise and decline of the Han Dynasty, one must understand the events that led to the creation of the principles, ideals, and policies that shaped the Han Dynasty. It has been purported by Dr. Arthur F. Wright that, “... [Dynasties], like men, have their periods of birth, growth, maturity, senescence, and death...In its genesis a Dynasty received the mandate to rule from Heaven, which recognized the justice and promise of the new regime. And at its end a Dynasty lost the mandate when its performance...destroyed the moral basis of a good society.” Ergo, if the premise that the formation of Dynasties comes from the succession of one Dynasty in the wake of another is true, one must understand what was unique about the fall of the Qin Dynasty (the Han Dynasty’s predecessor) to understand the historical context that ushered in the “Golden Age” of Ancient China through the Han Dynasty.

The predecessor to the Han Dynasty, the Qin Dynasty, lasted from 221 to 206 B.C.. The Qin Empire operated on ruthless legal practices, drafting Qin citizens into the military, extensive taxes that crippled Chinese merchants, and the burning of any text that spoke ill of the Emperor or his policies. Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi enacted policies to forcefully deport citizens, who he then forced to conquer lands in the northern regions of China, claiming the newly conquered territory as a part of China. Qin Shi Huangdi then enforced totalitarian laws in the new parts of his empire, without the permission of the people and without consulting their former leaders, thus forcing them to assimilate into Qin Chinese culture.^[6] The ruthless tyranny of Huangdi has prompted Chinese scholars to liken him to the Nero of the east.^[7] Once the Emperor established imperial rule through Chinese military hegemony, the Qin tyranny expanded to education, where Emperor Huangdi took measures to obliterate free thinking and intellectual opposition by banning ethical writings from scholarly authors, an event later entitled by Han Chinese as ‘The Burning of The Books.”^[8]

However, this imperial rule failed to last for an extensive period. When Shi Huangdi died in 210 B.C., one of his younger sons, Huhai, was appointed emperor by Shi Huangdi’s former statesmen, Li Si. Huhai was not a cruel and ruthless emperor like his predecessor, leading to rebellion after rebellion due to widespread civil unrest and unpopularity in the Qin regime. Over the next three years, rebellions continued to occur as a result of the collapsed imperialistic structure. Revolts came from both peasant people who resented the persecutory tax levied upon them, and from Chinese scholarly intellectuals who no longer recognized the authority of the Qin empire.^[9] These revolts against the state resulted in the execution of Li Si in 209 B.C., and Emperor Huhai would be driven to suicide a year after.^[10] As a result, Zhao Gao, who was the next statesmen in line for the throne, assumed power for himself. Zhao Gao met a similar fate in 207 B.C. when he was assassinated by rebels, effectively destroying the remaining power structure that the central government relied on to prop up the Qin empire.^[11]

The collapse of the administrative leaders in the Qin dynasty resulted in civil war throughout the kingdom. The civil conflict came to a head when the Qin military, the Chu rebel faction that spawned as insurrectionists to the Qin regime, the Western Chinese King of the Bashu region, and soon to be Han Emperor Liu Bang’s armies clashed in 206 B.C..^[12] Liu Bang emerged decidedly as the victor of the civil war in 202 ʙ.ᴄ. This victory caused the shift away from tyrannical rule and marked a new era for China in the Han Dynasty. This shift from despotism was not mere coincidence, as Liu Bang faced severe opposition due to the fear from the Chu rebels the rise of a peaceful emperor would only cause more despotism and tyranny.^[13]

Liu Bang sought to reconcile this issue when he assumed power in 202 B.C.. Bang’s priorities focused on preserving the administrative authority of the Qin empire, while also ensuring that there was an increase of equality and civil liberty for the kingdoms and provinces to prevent a recurrence of a civil war. ^[14] This compromise led to Liu Bang promoting the separation of powers by dividing up conquered land amongst his allies and his relatives who ruled over individual kingdoms in ancient China. Thus, sharing authority and power between allies was cemented in Liu Bang’s rule, leading to the creation of aristocracy in the Han, which led to greater peace and security.^[15] Also, Confucianism began to emerge in the era of the Han dynasty, an emergence Liu Bang played to his support through the compromise of central power.^[16] The move towards Confucianism meant that officials had to place proper and significant value in the Confucian values of integrity and proper behavior that grew to become standardized in the administration of the Han regime.^[17] Ergo, Confucian values in integrity led to the development of more personal and familial relationships between social organizations and relationships; the implications of the structures of relationships meant that the emperor was not the sole imperial ruler over every citizen. Instead, society was a conglomeration of individuals answering to several superiors and subordinates before the emperor, indicating individuals possessed more autonomy and liberty.^[18]

The collapse of the first half of the Han Dynasty and the corruption of the anocratic principles of the central government came in 9 B.C. when the founder and first Emperor of the Xin Dynasty, Wang Mang, came to power. As the statesmen charged with the task of ruling over the child Emperor Han Chengdi (33-7 B.C.), Wang Mang rose to power in the imperial court by assimilating control of the Emperor’s title.^[19] When Wang Mang became the official regent for Emperor Chengdi,^[20] he seized control of the empire by deposing the official emperor.^[21] Wang Mang attempted to justify his rule, claiming a hereditary right to rule the throne to secure a more convincing and authoritative right to rule.^[22] However, this false claim to legitimacy failed, as evident by the renowned Ancient Chinese scholar Pan Ku’s account in The Historical Records of the Han Dynasty.^[23] Pan Ku ensured that the legitimacy of Wang Mang remained insufficient, placing the biographical information of Wang Mang directly after a biographical section regarding “savages” and “barbarians.”^[24] This slander towards Wang Mang can only be interpreted as a Confucian “subtlety of condemnation,” as Pan Ku dedicated twelve annals in his work to the former emperors and dynastic rulers in the Han dynasty, which preceded Wang Mang’s rule.^[25] The illegitimacy of Wang Mang’s rule eventually called into question the legitimacy of the government itself in 23 A.D., when riots broke out in the capital city of Chang’an, ultimately ending in a ransacking of the imperial palace, along with the overthrow and death of Wang Mang as well. This was due in part to Wang Mang appealing to legalists to hedge back against Confucian dissent. Wang made several politically driven policies, such as the limiting of private property to forty-two acres per owner, government control of granaries to ensure market equilibrium, and prevent inflation, along with state-run money-lending businesses.^[26] These policies failed drastically, due to the proponent supporters of Wang distributing granary funds and supply unequally to themselves; the poor in China never had an opportunity to see the benefits of this granary system.^[27] Wang Mang’s straw to break the Chinese citizens’ back came with additional taxes, which sent shocks throughout the economic market in China, destabilizing the currency and further decreasing support and public opinion of Wang Mang.^[28] Wang’s end came in 23 A.D. through a combination of rebellion and an alteration in the course of the Yellow River, which was believed to be a sign of the imbalance in Yin and Yang, signaling catastrophe and destruction, giving rebellious citizens all the reason necessary to depose Wang Mang.^[29] Thus, the oligarchy of legalism and the life of Wang Mang were short-lived, and the sour taste left in Chinese citizens' mouths meant that the re-ascension of the new Han empire held no protests.

The shift from an oligarchic society to a more anocratic society was birthed in the Eastern Han dynasty in 25 A.D. when the first Emperor of Later Han Liu Xiu attained power.^[30] The Eastern Han Empire realigned with Former Han practices in law while offering new approaches to hierarchical structures in government.^[31] Eastern Han expanded upon the religious thought and proliferation of free-thinking through the expansion of the legalistic Daoist religious practices, along with the eventual founding of Buddhist establishments.^[32] Liu Xiu saw that the heavy emphasis on idealism rooted in Confucian thought led to the unstable collapse of the Western Han, and thus aired towards Legalistic thinking found in the Daoist tradition. This balance of idealism and legalism led to the eventual development of a significant academy of political thought at Luoyang, the capital of the Eastern Han dynasty, with an emphasis on a classical education that trained students in Confucian thought with an extensive Daoist education to correlate.^[33] One of the main reasons for this correlation was that Daoism, though legalistic, still was able to function under Confucianism as both pursued the same goal of harmony and an overarching philosophical ethic as a result.^[34]

Introduction of The Han Dynasty

The developments that led to the liberalization of the social, economic, and political structure of China are often forgotten, locked away in texts, and are largely unread in favor of a more contemporary historical education. Ancient Chinese political achievements are limited to concepts or landmarks that the West has similarities to, such as the Great Wall or Dynastic Cycle. Ancient China is taken at its face value, precluding meaningful discussion about the social and governmental institutions. Thus, it is necessary to address the context and foundation of the period, and the nuance that led to the growth and development of the Han regime which has come to earn the title for the period known as the “Golden Age” of Ancient China. The Han Dynasty provided a new foundation for all proceeding Dynasties through an increase in centralized and demarcated government control, while also ushering in a new era of peace through Anocracy that resolved the issue of tyrannical imperial rule and chaotic despotism found in warring nation-states and the preceding empires.

The ascension of the Han empire (202 B.C.-220 A.D.) came in the wake of an insurrection in the former Qin (Chin) regime. The revolt was a rejection of the authoritarianism and intellectual conformity that sought to suppress free thought under the 1^st Emperor of Qin, Shi Huangdi.^[35] Shi Huangdi tried to remove ethical ideals promulgated by erudite criticism. The criticism of the Qin empire declared that Shi Huangdi’s legalist system of laws and penalties created a society of oppression, which in turn made the populace resentful and hostile towards Shi Huangdi and the laws he established.^[36] The demise of the Qin empire began with Liu Bang, a statesman in central China, whose political movement ushered in a new era for China.^[37] Once in power, Liu Bang sought to reduce or eliminate the severities that had been created by the former regime.^[38]

While aspects of Qin political order remained in the Han Dynasty (such as the imperial rule over kingdoms and the continuation of statewide taxes), Liu Bang sought to avoid the political mistakes made from Qin policy while maintaining their organizational success.^[39] Liu Bang faced a substantial barrier to ruling China because of the power dichotomy between providing more social and political freedom to kingdoms and citizens, while also preserving the rule of one Emperor, as was done in the Qin Dynasty (Emperor Liu fervently believed that maintaining imperial rule was necessary to emulate the administrative success of the Qin Dynasty).^[40] The solution to this problem was not straightforward and required the council of several scholars and statesmen. The council of statesmen, and the politicians that made up the council, such as Lu Jia (228 B.C.-140 A.D.), brought the answer to preserving the Han Dynasty. Lu Jia advised a milder version of Qin law, advocating for less severe punishment, and for more independence for the kingdoms that fell under the emperor’s rule. This model presented continuity between the Zhou dynasty (1046-256 BCE) by utilizing similar policies and procedures for how the courts and laws would proceed while introducing milder forms of the Qin empires’ administrative policies. ^[41]

Liu Bang’s next significant alteration to traditional political infrastructure was to move the capital of the Han empire from Luoyang, in the Western region of China to Guanzhong, in the Northern region.^[42] The geographical shift from Xianyang to Luoyang represented a symbolic break from the era of tyrannical rule under the Qin Dynasty to a more independent and autonomous society under the Han Dynasty, where criticism and dissident opinions were allowed, and even welcomed.^[43] This change provided independence to kings ruling over the regions of China that fell under Liu Bang’s jurisdiction, freedom for statesmen to criticize or offer council to the Emperor, and liberty and equality the Han Chinese people socially and politically.

The transition into the Han Dynasty began with the regional demarcation of territories in China that were previously ruled by tribes and warlords in the Qin Dynasty. Liu Bang established civil governors, military governors, and a direct representative of the people to the central government in areas where former warring states once ruled. This eliminated the Ancient Warring tribes in favor of a more centralized and representative government.^[44]

Liu Bang expanded on this model of centralized government, adding provinces, commanderies, and counties^[45] to nation-states formerly ruled by Qin warlords.^[46] The critical difference between the Han and Qin empires with these expanded states was that Liu Bang allowed political figures to leverage their power against the Emperor and his imperial control.^[47] Initially, scholars and statesmen within Liu Bang’s court advised against such a proposal, arguing that too much freedom would result in revolt from kingdoms that would grow too independent.^[48] This fear wasn’t realized throughout much of the early Han dynasty, as only a few kingdoms still clinging to the Qin Dynasty revolted against Liu Bang.

Absent of these revolts, which were seldom in comparison to the unstable Qin Dynasty, the peace that marked the Han Dynasty came from the Emperor delegating roles and offices to political leaders to centralize power and extend the policies from the Qin Dynasty.^[49] This unique element that cemented Han emperors’ rule came to complete fruition in 139 B.C. when the imperial kinsman Liu An presented to the emperor at the time, Emperor Wu, the Huainanzi (Master of Huainan), the master document on monarchy and kingship in China.^[50] The Huainanzi provided all the necessary knowledge for a monarch of China to rule adequately, providing both a fundamental understanding of human nature and society, while also giving a wide array of applications to be made for specific concerns to instill wisdom and practicality in the emperor.^[51] This framework for how a leader should rule provided the dynastic changes necessary for the Han empire, moving away from imperialistic, warring nation-states under the Qin, to a peaceful and independent society in Han China.

The Opening of the Silk Road

The opening of the Silk Road (130 ʙ.ᴄ.) represented the outgrowth of the anocracy of Han China. It demonstrated the shift from economic and political isolationism to political trade with nearly all of Asia, Southern Europe, and Northern Africa. China primarily exported silk, and in exchange, received commodities such as Roman gold, wool, amber, ivory, and glass.^[52] The Silk Road served as the mechanism for the economic expansion of the Han Dynasty, while providing China with an excess of economic capital, to the point at which the Roman naturalist Pliny “complained about oriental luxuries…draining Roman treasuries.”^[53]

It is important to note that although the Silk Road did lead to an economic boom in the Han dynasty, it did not directly lead to the democratization of China. Rome had no knowledge of China beyond its silk trade. Sino-Roman relations, then, were purely economic and did not ever contribute to the Han Dynasty’s political development.^[54] Most Roman citizens merely referred to Han Chinese as “the silk people,” whereas most Han Chinese only knew of a “Great Qin” empire to the west. Since trade was purely economic, Rome and China did not engage in the political or ideological exchange of ideas in 1^st-century ʙ.ᴄ.^[55] The ignorance of Eastern political structure in the West, and the ignorance of Western governmental system in the East was due in part to the trade routes, and the way commodities were exported in the ancient world. Asian trade routes were not direct; they typically passed through Central Asian markets such as India, Afghanistan, and Persia, before reaching Western nations such as Rome. Silk, for example, was not directly sent from China to Rome, for no merchant ever traveled from either Empire to the other. Instead, trade from China made its way to Central Asian markets, then to more Western nations until it reached Rome.^[56]

Chinese expansion of trade to the West became possible when a longer period of peace was achieved throughout Central Asia and Southern Europe. This was partially due to the high demand for Chinese silk, which was valuable in the Roman world. This created an incentive to ensure the network of trade remained intact for merchant trade to remain stable throughout the ancient world.^[57] The increased trade bolstered China’s hegemony, which strengthened their war efforts against the warring Xiongnu confederacy to the north from previous failures to suppress and defeat the Xiongnu.^[58] The failure to properly extinguish the Xiongnu threat stemmed from the size of the Chinese military, which was too large to mobilize in short enough period to counteract the Xiongnu forces. The Xiongnu’s tactical warring tribes made their combat and ability to maneuver much faster than the Chinese military, giving them the opportunity to invade rural Chinese villages and retreat North before the Chinese army could mobilize to launch a counter-offensive. Originally, previous emperors such as Emperor Wendi (157-141 ʙ.ᴄ.) had pacified the Xiongnu with gifts that would deter the Xiongnu from attacking the northern rural region of China.^[59]

This pattern of appeasement shifted when Emperor Wudi (Liu Che) of Han came to power. Emperor Wudi took a more direct approach towards the Xiongnu. Rather than mobilizing the military to try and meet a Xiongnu invasion, Emperor Wudi established a military district in the home of the Xiongnu, Mongolia. Furthermore, Emperor Wudi created a permanent defensive line along the western front of Manchuria province to the north of Mongolia.^[60] This military expansion by Emperor Wudi had several implications. Chinese military presence became permanent in the North of China, deterring the Xiongnu from invading the rural province of Gansu. The expansion of military presence in the North led to policies that expanded the military sphere of protection for Han merchants traveling along the Northern trade route of the Silk Road. This policy became more expansive throughout Emperor Wudi’s reign, leading to the protection of precious silk caravans traveling West along the Silk Road. Thus, as trade routes became more defined and utilized from Central Asia to the west, so did the military presence of the Han dynasty to secure the protections of these caravans.

The Silk Road marked a period of immense growth in Chinese trade, expanding trade from nations located throughout Central Asia, to the shores of the Roman Empire. The trading of silk also provided the Han military with the necessary capital to combat the Xiongnu and expand the Han Empire further North and West in Mongolia and Manchuria, providing safe access for merchants traveling along the Northern route of the Silk Road. Ergo, the Silk Road’s expanse led to a period of immense wealth and prosperity in Han China, while also providing one of the longest periods of security for a Chinese Dynasty.

Ancient Eastern Anocracy

There is a rich vocabulary for Western and human right centric political systems, but “an adequate conceptual framework for categorizing and understanding different forms of authoritarian government” has not yet been developed.^[61] This has caused several problems for the development of Political Thought as it relates to history. Because of the lack of both conceptual framework and exhaustive vocabulary, historians face difficulty both categorizing and defining Ancient Eastern regimes. Because of this, Ancient Eastern regimes have been over-simplified and dismissed as “imperialistic” or “monarchical” without consideration for political nuance. It is necessary, then, to create a framework that is appropriate for historical application and useful for analyzing Ancient China.

To properly understand political institutions and governmental development, various “types” of government must be analyzed as dynamic, not static.^[62] That is, no government will be entirely monarchical, autocratic, or democratic in nature or practice. It is helpful, then, to think of types of government on a gradient scale. A country may be more or less democratic, with monarchical or autocratic tendencies or undertones. Practically, it is difficult to label a government without generalization. In this paper, “democracy” will not refer to a pure democracy, rather to underlying democratic principles and values, such as moderation, the freedom of the individual, wisdom, and equality.^[63] A proper intellectual framework for Ancient Eastern “Democracy” would include three main categories: governmental structure (marked by institutional independence through the separation of powers), civil principles that encourage the freedom, virtue and due process for individuals, and the participation of the citizenry in civic activities. Democratic governmental structure manifests itself in the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and institutional means for public discourse. The cultural values and principles that encourage democracy place a social emphasis on the importance of the rule of law. Therefore, democracy values and encourages “civil culture with all its ingredients such as moderation, tolerance, open-mindedness, respect for minority rights, efficacy, adequate information, opinion formation, participation in political discussion,”^[64] and the citizens are equipped to engage in the politics. Participation of the citizenry in civic activities is not as evident in Ancient cultures because the cultures are Pre-Enlightenment; thus, their conception of the role of the individual in society is foreign to us, and because individualism was filtered through the lens of the aristocracy.^[65] The civil principles are still important to the development of “democracy,” although they take different forms. Instead of an emphasis on the individual as a policymaker, the citizen’s ability to participate in politics through representatives was underscored. This included the ability of the countryman to “effectively function as the countervailing force vis-a-vis the state.”^[66]

The proper understanding of democracy as it relates to Ancient Eastern cultures establishes that while certain democratic indicators exist in Han China, there are also autocratic and even monarchical institutional arrangements. This dichotomy presents a form of anocracy. Anocracy is composed of three elements: (1) participation and integration of the citizenry in government, (2) government structure that supports and encourages the participation of citizens, and (3) increased individual and political freedoms. Bell explains the first aspect of anocracy as a “regime [with] the institutional capacity for some broader participation in the governing process.”^[67] This is the participatory aspect of anocracy, which allows individuals to create political change. The second element requires “some institutional ability to facilitate candidate recruitment beyond the selection by a small cadre of anointed leaders,”^[68] which was executed in Han China through recruitment of candidates for political offices that encompassed all citizens, which created a set of government officials that represented diverse portions of the populace.^[69] Bell and Regan argue that all that ultimately defines an anocracy is the final element, a “degree of institutional openness, the openness of pathways to participation, and the constraints on political recruitment.”^[70] These aspects of an anocracy were embodied in Han China through the separation of powers, allowing the common man to participate in government affairs, and through political infrastructure more concerned with the right and freedom of the commoner than with the position or status of a political officer.^[71]

Anocracy in China is described in a passage from the Book of History.^[72] In the third section, Emperor Tai-Kung, who is described as “a corpse in office,” is reprimanded and given teachings because “the people would not endure [his unmeasured indulgence].”^[73] The context emphasizes the importance of anocracy by framing it with the authority of the ancestors, indicating that the teaching was widely accepted, applied, and had become the expected behavior of the ruler. Emperor Tai-Kung is told, “Our great ancestor declared in his teachings that the people should be cherished and should not be debased. For the people are the country's foundation, and when the foundation is firm set the country is peacefully disposed.”^[74] This teaching embodies anocratic principles, encouraging a “primacy of the people.”^[75] This is very similar to the democratic Ancient West, which encouraged individualistic principles and freedoms through political infrastructure. This is similar to the democracy that Ober argues was the traditional view of democracy in the Ancient West. The Ancient West did not view democracy as a type of majority rule as it is viewed today, it viewed it as the “collective capacity of a public to make good things happen in the public realm.”^[76] This original meaning of democracy has less to do with representation within government, and more closely supports the modern understanding of anocracy. This helps shape the view from which the Han Dynasty can be evaluated, giving a historically accurate understanding of anocracy.

Government Structure

While the Han governmental structure supported an imperial system, its principles were anocratic. The territory of the Han Dynasty was extensive, which made a pure monarchy impossible. As such, the landmass was divided into provinces and kingdoms, which were, in turn, subdivided into counties and districts.^[77] The administrative structure was centralized under the Emperor, which was not a deviation from previous dynasties. However, the beginning of the Han Dynasty marked a new period of Chinese political thought. Instead of hereditary succession or succession based on political or economic rank, the founder of Han, Liu Bang, came from a family of low social, political, and financial status. He came to power not because he was a man of “noble origin” or a man of “wisdom and virtue.” He was elevated in rank by the people. Liu Bang’s status of Emperor was awarded to him because he overthrew the brutal and tyrannical Qin Dynasty, because he brought peace to the people of China, and because he had distributed his power among those who had assisted him in deposing the Qin Dynasty. This was a drastic shift from the aristocratic system of choosing the line of succession and marked a new era in China.

The Imperial Court of Imperial ministers was a system expanded from the Zhou Dynasty. As the empire expanded, administrative roles were expanded and added. The Three Lords, or the highest triumvirate, served as the second rank to the Emperor and consisted of the Chancellor of State, the Vice-Chancellor, and the Grand Commandant. The Chancellor of State was the second only to the Emperor and is described in the Han Shu as the “arms and legs [of the Emperor], the one with whom [the Emperor]… rule all within the Seas.”^[78] According to the same source, his duties were to “care for the state, and take charge of all the officials.”^[79] The Chancellor of State was to lead state affairs, determine the budget for the state, and was accountable for providing military supplies. This gave him direct visibility to all provinces, administrative actions, and records. As the second in command, he also acted in the absence of the Emperor.^[80] The Imperial Secretary was the third in power, was also called the Vice-Chancellor, who not only assisted the Chancellor but also kept him accountable to the law and his duties. He was “to take charge of the laws and to rectify their violations….[and] maintains a general supervision over all of the officials and sees to it that the superior and inferior check up upon each other.”^[81] His primary duty was the latter: to ensure the correct execution of authority. As such, he carried out orders for disciplinary action in political administration if it was necessary (this included officials above and below him).^[82] The Grand Commandant deserves mention, but had no administrative role, as his formal role was limited to the military alone.

Under the Three Lords, nine ranking ministers ruled over separate administrative departments. These nine ranking ministers were as follows: the Minister of Ceremonies, the Supervisor of Attendants, the Commandant of Guards, the Grand Servant, the Commandant of Justice, the Grand Herald, the Director of the Imperial Clan, the Grand Minister of Agriculture, and the Small Treasurer. Each of them were the head of a department and thus were consulted on issues of the welfare of the state. The Minister of Ceremonies was the chief priest, reviewed all candidates for political offices, and oversaw the Imperial Academy by selecting and examining students. The Supervisor of Attendants supervised palace guards and candidates for political officers. The Commandant of Guards was the head of palace security and held no significant political role. The Grand Servant directed the chariots and horses of the Emperor, as well as the government pastures; much like the Commandant of Guards, the Grand Servant held no significant political position. The Commandant of Justice oversaw civil and military law and approved or declined all lawsuits that necessitated further judicial reasoning (The county administration was the lowest law court led by the County Prefect. If the case needed further legal evaluation, it proceeded to the Provincial Governor. The final opportunity for deliberation was the Emperor).^[83] He also established case law (called the Law of the Commandant of Justice). The Grand Herald oversaw the submission of barbarians and had a conglomeration of other duties that are insignificant to this topic. The Director of the Imperial Clan kept a record of the members of the Imperial House. The Grand Minister of Agriculture and the Small Treasurer both managed finances, including taxes, determining the monetary value of labor, directed government monopolies, and paid the expenses of the state and the emperor. This system of the Imperial Court essentially created a separation of powers and reified the idea that the label of “monarchy” ignores the significant political achievements of Ancient China.

The structure on the local level was also extensive and supported citizen participation within the government. The emperor appointed a Palace Assistant Imperial Clerk who would influence and appoint the local officials. Directly under the authority of the Palace Assistant Imperial Clerk was the Circuit Inspector, also called a Governor, who ruled provinces. A similar administrative hierarchy continued with the Chief Commander, also called Administrator, who held a supervisory governmental role. The Chief Commander/Administrator led the Prefect (also called the Chief Magistrate), who ruled over Counties. The smallest populace was the District, which was ruled over by the Chief of Police. At a local level, however, Local Elders were allowed to establish the law and instruct their people morally and politically. This allowed for grassroots leadership to rise to power. Hsu explains that while this is far from democracy, “it is natural...because in daily life experience, those who actually governed were the community chiefs… It seems that the maintenance of order, the primary concern of the early Han government, would have rested very largely upon the local leaders at the district level.” The shift of government to this system sowed the seeds for anocracy, which later came to fruition through the law.^[84]

It is interesting to note that the Emperor employed the Colonel of Censure and the Circuit Inspectors, both of which were officers whose sole duty was to ensure justice in the execution of administrative offices and to discipline any officer who was found to be unjust. The Colonel of Censure and the Circuit Inspectors were personal employees of the Emperor, not of the state, and thus were able to prosecute any officer without fear of repercussion. Their duty was to defend the people and investigate the powerful.^[85] The Han Shu describes the duty of the Circuit Inspectors, saying they were to consider in their prosecution and investigation “Whether… powerful clans… have overstepped the regulations… made use of their power to oppress the weak, or, relying on their greater number have tyrannized over the few. Whether [Provincial Governors] have failed to observe the Imperial edicts or failed to obey the statutes of the state; whether they have turned their backs on the interests of the state and have pursued their private interests… whether they have exploited the people by illegal exactions… Whether [Provincial Governors] have failed to give careful attention to doubtful law cases, or have put people to death cruelly; whether they have recklessly resorted to punishment… whether they have been so troublesome and tyrannical as to skin the people or cut them into pieces, and are so hated by the people… Whether [Provincial Governors] have been unfair in selecting officials, favoring those they like, concealing those who are worthy, and tolerating those who are stupid… Whether the sons and brothers of [Provincial Governors] … have demanded favors from those under his supervision… acted contrary to the public… [or accepted] bribes, thus invalidating the government ordinances."^[86] It is clear, then, that justice is a primary concern in governance as opposed to the preservation of the roles of bureaucrats.

Thus, the Emperor was nominally the sole governor of China. The vast political structure, however, made his authority less than absolute. The Han dynasty brought about a new era of socio-political, economic, and religious principles and thought. The emergence of an anocratic government in response to a tyrannical regime led to the development of individuality and a moral framework for how society should be governed. It created a type of a representative government, while also reforming administrative structure to allow increased freedoms for the people, and increased accountability for government officials. This was a new era for China, which ushered in the necessary tools for the partial emancipation of the people of China. The emancipation of the people of China through freedom of political thought and the increased freedom of the people led to territorial expansion. The vast economic gain that China received from the opening of the Silk Road allowed the nation to become well known in the ancient world for silk, while also expanding China’s imperial footprint. This expanded its territorial, maritime, and military boundaries, culminating in one of Ancient China’s most peaceful, and most secure period ever witnessed or documented. The expansion and trade of China were so successful that the Han Dynasty became the Eastern economic and hegemonic contemporary of Ancient Rome during the Golden Age of Rome.

The Dynastic Cycle and series of successions that occurred throughout the Han dynasty also represented the progression of societies and polities. This is empirical proof that the Eastern theory of the Chinese Dynastic Cycle and the Western theory of anakyklosis are parallel, occurring in the dynasties preceding and proceeding the Han dynasty. This is significant because it transcends cultural borders and underlines the commonality of Natural Law, the tendency towards freedom, and the necessity of reformation within all governments. Thus, neither tyranny nor democracy are uniquely “Western” or “Eastern,” instead, they are uniquely human, and describe how individuals interact with each other in the context of power struggles and relationships of hierarchy. With proper examination, one can see the progression of various dynasties and their rise and decline in China. Qin, Former Han, Xin, and Eastern Han all emulate the Dynastic Cycle of an empire rising to power through claiming the Mandate of Heaven, losing the Mandate, disseminating in civil wars, famine, and poverty, ultimately allowing for a new dynasty to rise in the ashes of the previous administration. This theory of the Dynastic Cycle was developed during the Han Dynasty, which further reifies the idea that the Han Dynasty was the first Chinese Imperial Administration to conceive of the idea of reformation after tyranny, and the first dynasty to recognize the significance of individual rights and moral integrity throughout society, emphasizing individuals within the populace to support and uphold peace and the natural law in civil affairs.

The structure of Ancient China allowed anocratic principles, and the Han Dynasty reified the idea that anakyklosis was not uniquely Western. Rather, the West and the East are both founded on principles of Natural Law (or li) that emphasizes the importance of the individual's ability to alter the public and political realm to fit the will of the people, and for society to become more virtuous. This is a significant discovery because it establishes the socio-political and cultural touchpoints for democracy in the East. The West has long viewed Western Democracy as the only way to free the East from political, social and religious oppression. Still, scholars and political theorists have labeled China as a “no go” zone for democracy because of cultural, political and economic “incompatibilities” between the East and West. The proven thesis that Ancient China, which is commonly known as a time of oppression and strong political hierarchies, was anocratic, and therefore had democratic tendencies flies in the face of the excuse of the West to allow the oppression of the Chinese to continue.

This implies that the cultural and political foundation of China does not preclude the ability of the East to shift of its own accord to a more liberalized form of governance. The internal workings of China support and even encourage the social, political, and ethical predecessors to anocratic China. This is apparent in the cultural dissonance that is arising in modern China with the dichotomy of the all-powerful state that has attempted to reshape the Chinese people into its own image, and the restless populace whose values, ideals, and ancestors push against tyranny and long for freedom. Thus, Modern China mirrors the desire of Ancient China for freedom, for democracy, and the ability to have political influence. The Anocractic principles that emerged in the wake of the tyrannical Qin empire doom the thesis that modern China is incapable of democratic and liberal reform and gives hope to the oppressed who seek for the dawning of a second golden era in China.

Law and Politics: Hierarchical Interactions

Law ultimately sets boundaries, establishes rights, and determines the form of government for any state. The Han Dynasty established freedoms, methods for bottom-up political change, and allowed for anocratic representation of the people within government. The structure of Ancient Chinese law was based on two fundamental concepts: fa and li. These foundational principles were intended to curb wrongdoing and to encourage virtue in the citizenry.

Fa can be literally translated as “law,” but has a rich meaning that is commonly overlooked by those who do not have access to the historical context of its legal and social use. Fa is composed of three components: “(1) the element of a model, i.e., something worthy to be followed or striven after; (2) the element of water-level, hence the idea of fairness and balance; (3) the element of a linear ruler, hence the idea of straightforwardness and justice.”^[87] Han law embodied these three elements of fa. First, Ancient Chinese law was positivist in nature and acted as a series of punishments for those who did not follow the law.^[88] Positive law provides guidelines for what an individual is entitled to, thus shaping the law in a way that encouraged virtue instead of discouraging wrongdoing. The differentiation between those two concepts may seem minuscule, but it is significant. Confucius summarized the difference between the two when he said: “As a judge, I decide disputes, for that is my duty; but the best thing that could happen would be to eliminate the cause for litigation.”^[89]

Li is the moral law of China and has no English equivalent. It is similar to the Western concept of natural law in that it recognizes that humans are, by nature, evil and that it is necessary not only to curb immoral behavior but also identifies that it is beneficial to encourage virtue through structured governmental order and civil law.^[90] This concept of a natural order of justice was accepted throughout China and came to trump fa in importance. Mei makes the analysis that “[li] was a body of definite and uniform rules of civil conduct. To the Chinese, a violation of li was even more serious and more shameful than a violation of law.”^[91] This created a moral code that was stronger than the coercive and punitive power of government. Eastwood and Keeton make this analysis when they state that, "…Professor Jenks advanced the view that… the time may eventually arrive when law will be obeyed because people think it right and not because the organized force of the sovereign state is prepared to enforce it. This idea is not a new one. It is reflected, for instance, in some old philosophies, notably the Chinese."^[92] Li created fundamental change because it established a law common to all, that trumped even the law of the emperor. As in the West, this created an underlying sense of moral equality among individuals, which lead to increased political, moral, and social freedoms for individuals. Naturally, this led to individuals following the law because of a moral compulsion to do so. This freed the government from needing extensive and tyrannical law. While li as a concept preceded the Han Dynasty, it was first emphasized and widely adopted in the Han Dynasty due to the state endorsement of Confucianism, which was previously banned (which effectively outlawed the application of li).

The freedom from the law, but the obligation to virtue can be seen in the change in the length of law at the beginning of the Han Dynasty. At the beginning of Liu Bang’s reign as emperor, he both established law that was drastically different from the Qin Dynasty and communicated to the people a new era in China. In his speech, he said, “Elders, you have long suffered under the harsh laws of Qin. The entire families of those convicted of slander [against the emperor] were executed, and those convicted of plotting were executed and left in the market. I made an agreement with the various lords that the first to enter the pass should be king [within], so I should rule the area within the passes as king. And I make this agreement with you: The law shall have only three sections: one who kills another shall die, and one who harms another or steals shall pay recompense for the crime. The rest of the Qin laws are all done away with.”^[93] Because of this, “the people all gave their hearts to him.”^[94] It is clear that Liu Bang desired to break the tyrannical trajectory of the law of Qin and wanted to establish “virtue and kindness.”^[95] This type of legal code was only possible because of the natural inclination towards morality in Chinese culture. Wingmore expounded upon this idea, comparing it to the modern concept of justice saying, "To the Anglo-Norman lawyer, accustomed to do homage to strict legal principles as in and of itself the summum bonum of law, and to regard legal justice as manifesting itself only in a system of unbending rules, this quotation (from Puchta) will indicate better than anything else the great gulf that is fixed between his own system and that which was indigenous in China... Yet there are peoples to whom this type of justice is utterly alien. The 'struggle for right,' which the great German jurist, von Jehring, inculcated as the basis of civic law and order, is alien to Chinese thought. An unyielding insistence upon principle, and a rigid demand for one's due are almost as reprehensible as a vulgar physical struggle. Moral force, and the 'rule of reason,' should control, rather than strict technical rights. Compromise is the highest virtue; intolerance and obstinacy a mark of defective character…"^[96] The Chinese embrace of a strong sense of moral duty was due to the adoption of Confucianism as their official religion. This alone is indication of the beginning of a shift in government. When combined with the fact that Liu Bang desired to free his people from the tyranny of the law, his confidence in li becomes clear. Although Liu Bang eventually added to the legal code, its significance remains as both a political act and a speech of passion.

Throughout the rest of the Han Dynasty, li was established through fa. The result was that “governance [was] fair, and prosecutions [were] principled.”^[97] The strained relationship between the state and the people was mitigated by the introduction of a law that favored the people and allowed grassroots change to unjust legal code or corrupt judicial decisions. This marked the end of a people subjugated by law and freed individuals to act virtuously. Through li, the people of the Han Dynasty were granted a sense of equality, which influenced the fairness of fa itself.

Confucian Ideals and Values: Social Power Relations

Scholars have long discussed the dichotomy between power and freedom in China in the context of legal freedoms and Confucianism and the influence these factors had on both the masses and the power structure. Previous to the Han Dynasty, legal, religious, social, and personal freedoms were heavily regulated. The Qin Dynasty, the direct predecessor of the Han Dynasty, is infamous for its brutality and its legal, religious, and social restrictions through government mandates. The extreme cruelty of the Qin Dynasty inversely affected the Han Dynasty, leading to an age of increased freedoms for citizens.

The political atmosphere in the Qin Dynasty did not tolerate rebellion or those with anti-Qin sentiments, and those who did rebel were punished swiftly and severely to discourage other insurgents. While the policy of punishment for the sake of setting an example did not end in the Han Dynasty, the threshold for who deserved such a punishment changed drastically. The Han Dynasty did not execute rebels or those with unsavory sentiments; they punished criminals (officials who were corrupt at the expense of their people, those who murdered, and those who stole or damaged the property of another).^[98] The Qin Dynasty punished those who spoke out against government abuses, but the Han Dynasty not only accepted but also encouraged reporting abusive officials. Common people were also allowed to vocalize corruption in the justice system, which was unique during to the rule of the Han.^[99] The ability for the commoner to have completely equal civil and political rights to those who ruled can be seen in the case of Zhang Shizhi vs. Emperor Wen (203-157 ʙ.ᴄ.). A local man ran into the pathway of the imperial chariot, posing a potential risk to the emperor’s life (in the case that the horses bucked, the emperor would have been injured). The Emperor demanded severe punishment beyond what the law called for due to the sheer negligence of the commoner. Zhang Shizhi, the statesman charged with prosecuting the foolish man, resisted, stating that “while the emperor could have summarily executed the man [while the case was in his hands], [but] once the matter was given over to [Zhang Shizhi], he was obliged to follow the law.”^[100] The primacy of the law and its prioritization over the emperor provided common citizens with the necessary civil rights to prevent corruption of power and to ensure their freedom and safety. This access to civil rights was an alteration of the previous process of administrative political order and created a political and civil atmosphere of equality.

This political participation was due partially to the difference in the toleration of the governing officials, but also because the government increased the channels through allowing the populace through six political acts: (1) written disapproval or approval, sent through a political official to the emperor, (2) speech acts that expressed both a problem and a solution, (3) the direct appeal from the people to the emperor, (4) folksongs, (5) general political criticism, and (6) writing literature. Political criticism was the means for the intelligentsia to express a political opinion.^[101] These mechanisms for political participation cover a variety of methods, making it accessible to each citizen. This gave the people representative and direct power of the government, enabling commoners to engage in the political system. This is evident in the case of the old man Guang, an individual bestowed with what was known as the “kings staff,” which entitled him “...to specific legal privileges, including immunity to prosecution by local officers; [and] if prosecution was deemed necessary, recourse to a higher authority was required.”^[102] This right was tested when he was “disrespect[ed] after being arrested and punished in contravention of the edict.”^[103] Guang confronted the emperor himself with his complaint against the officer. Guang then stated that if the law were not upheld, he would relinquish his privileges and become a slave. The emperor listened to the commoner and executed the officer who had violated Guangs rights. The emperor immediately punished the officer in order to uphold the law and to honor the rights and privileges granted to common citizens. This emphasizes the value placed on upholding the law in all instances, which allowed individuals to maintain their liberty.

The cultural and religious changes were ushered in by the state embrace of Confucianism as the state religion. While Confucianism may seem antithetical to anocratic concepts, it naturally follows a regime that both perpetuates a monarchical government structure and a politically free population. Confucianism values the same ideals of a democracy (freedom, equality, representation in politics, justice, and virtue), but contextualized to the community as opposed to the individual.^[104] Confucianism established equality in the Han Dynasty in its doctrine that all men, despite being born flawed, have a natural desire to acquire the characteristics of loyalty, piety, propriety, and righteousness.^[105] This established a basic moral equivalence among the people of China, despite their rank in the political hierarchy. This justified political action and leadership from the populace. Although Confucianism reified some hierarchical structures (claiming that the emperor should be a man born virtuous), anocracy also supported imperialistic structures, so the argument made by many historians that any democratic ideals are incompatible with Confucianism does not function when holistically interpreted. Confucianism demands devotion from individuals to virtue, which does not exclude devotion to a politically free society. This is evident in the two core concepts of Confucian philosophy: ren and li. Ren was defined by Confucius as “loving others” and expresses the Confucian desire for “harmonious human-society relationships.”^[106] This Confucian principle drove the Chinese of the Han Dynasty to be morally bound to principles that supported anocratic principles, such as equality and justice, through political participation. The concept of li united the concept of law and ethics, internalizing these Confucian principles into legal code,^[107] creating the governmental shift to anocracy. All of this can be summarized in the importance of equality, truth, and fair respect for individuals in Confucian thought. Because Confucianism did not distinguish the “humanness” of the elite from the “humanness” of the populace, both the elite and the common man shifted to a middle ground of human (as opposed to divine and savage).^[108] This concept was furthered by the importance of moral rights in Han China, which prioritized fairness through political procedures structured to find the truth. This ensured a type of mandated due process in order to satisfy the religious obligation to truth. Because of the state-mandated promotion of Confucianism, religion, philosophy, and politics became intimately intertwined, reconstructing the Han government in the form of an ideal Confucian society.

The promotion of Confucianism and the focus on due process allowed for individuals to check back against tyranny at an unprecedented rate, regardless of the political status of the oppressor. The prioritization of the law and justice over the political hierarchy is demonstrated in the case of Tian Yunzhong, the Grand Administrator of Huaiyang. Tian Yunzhong ruthlessly executed individuals contrary to the law, prompting officers and citizens from his province to complain about his tyrannical practices. The central government bestowed upon Tian Yunzhong the same fate he had so liberally given to his offenders. Thus, equality and due process were upheld. Ergo, the Confucian promotion of due process and strict adherence to the law maintained the social and political order the Han Dynasty established. Social and political shifts in the Han Dynasty caused a drastic shift in power from the Qin Dynasty, who severely restricted their citizens intellectually and politically. The effect of legal freedoms and Confucianism on both the masses and the government created social and religious reform that supported anocracy in the Han Dynasty, allowing for extensive political reforms that would increase the political freedoms of the commoner.

Conclusion

The Han dynasty brought about a new era of socio-political, economic, and religious principles and thought. The emergence of an anocratic government in response to a tyrannical regime led to the development of individuality and a moral framework for how society should be governed. It created a type of a representative government, while also reforming administrative structure to allow increased freedoms for the people, and increased accountability for government officials. This was a new era for China which ushered in the necessary tools for partial emancipation of the people of China. The political and social emancipation of the people of China led to territorial expansion. The vast economic gain that China received from the opening of the Silk Road allowed the nation to become well known in the ancient world for silk, while also expanding China’s imperial footprint. This expanded its territorial, maritime, and military boundaries, culminating in one of Ancient China’s most peaceful, and most secure periods ever witnessed or documented. The expansion and trade of China was so successful that the Han Dynasty became the Eastern economic and hegemonic contemporary of Ancient Rome during the Golden Age of Rome.

The structure of Ancient China allowed anocratic principles, and the Han Dynasty promoted civil virtues and liberty. Thus, the West and the East are both founded on principles of Natural Law (or li) that emphasizes the importance of the individual's ability to alter the public and political realm in order to fit the will of the people, and in order for society to become more virtuous. This is a significant discovery because it establishes the socio-political and cultural touchpoints for democracy in the East. The West has long viewed Western Democracy as the only way to free the East from political, social and religious oppression. Still, scholars and political theorists have labeled China as a “no go” zone for democracy because of cultural, political and economic “incompatibilities” between the East and West. The proven thesis that Ancient China, which is commonly known as a time period of oppression and strong political hierarchies, was anocratic, and therefore had democratic tendencies, flies in the face of the excuse of the West to allow the oppression of the Chinese to continue.

This implies that the cultural and political foundation of China does not preclude the ability of the East to shift of its own accord to a more liberalized form of governance. The internal workings of China support and even encourage the social, political, and ethical predecessors to anocratic China. This is apparent in the cultural dissonance that is arising in modern China with the dichotomy of the all-powerful state that has attempted to reshape the Chinese people into its own image, and the restless populace whose values, ideals, and ancestors push against tyranny and long for freedom. Thus, Modern China mirrors the desire of Ancient China for freedom, for democracy, and the ability to have political influence. The anocractic principles that emerged in the wake of the tyrannical Qin empire doom the thesis that modern China is incapable of democratic and liberal reform and gives hope to the oppressed who seek for the dawning of a second golden era in China.