THE COLLAPSE OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE

 By IICHIRO TOKUTOMI, Contributing Editor, Mainichi Shimbun.

IT WOULD BE a desecration to introduce here the ideal of "Hakko Iu," which is the founding inspiration of this divine country.

If I were therefore to take the example of Greece, I could mention the Platonian republic in which a form of government ruled by philosophers at the head of the people was idealized. In China, there developed an ideal political form during the Enlightened Ages of the Emperors Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen Ti and Wu Ti, and Chou, as well as in the reigns of three Emperors of the Tang dynasty. These enlightened reigns were emulated for the next thousands of years as the model of government in China. But in the so-called Great Britain, what sort of political ideal is there? Or, even in the mother country, England itself, is there any principle that underlies the national founding?

 Thomas Moore's Utopia

 Of course, there was Thomas Moore's Utopia, but that was no more than a satire against the then reigning rulers and society in general. Moreover, it was none other than an imitation of Plato's republic, having nothing to do with the actual practice of the English Government.

 We are really amazed to find the complete absence of a political ideal among the British in our attempt to trace the rise and fall of the British Empire. They have neither an ideal nor conviction when it comes to their nationhood. They just accept the present as it comes.

 If I were compelled, however, to point out their national ideal, it is that to them the nation is more than expediency for the benefit of the individuals. Since they have no profound or fundamental ideal in nationhood, their nationhood is destitute of a central spirit.

 Anglo- Saxons are a people who have good common sense and are very realistic. In other words, their discussion follows an event and not the event discussion. Thus, the English Constitution was not conceived but was a growth. It is the formulation out of reality. But what is this reality itself?

 John Robert Seeley, an English historian, once said :

 "Just as most admirals in the English Navy are pirates, wars of England are large scale industrial undertakings to gain profit; and they have not only been most profitable undertakings, but most profitable investments."

 Thus, their only thought was Profit with no other intellectual efforts or ardor of action or labor. 

But their spirit of piracy took different forms according to time and place, just like a winding stream, here a rivulet, there a pool ; at times a waterfall and at other times a vast ocean. Now, it is ice, then lukewarm to boiling hot water. All these are, however, the same water from the beginning to the end. Likewise, their piratical nature has taken one thousand and one forms according to the circumstances.

 Home Of Political Doctrines

 This does not mean to say that there were no political tenets or opinions in English politics. In fact, England was the original home of political doctrines, and in modern ages all other countries imported them retail from her.

 I am not a philosopher nor a legislator, but when I look over the past phases of England's political endeavors, I would say their political activities were the logical expression of England herself.

 Now, let us, for convenience's sake, set the beginning of England in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and let us examine one Francis Bacon during that period.

 Francis Bacon

 Francis Bacon was one of the greatest philosophers in mind, as well as in matter. He was not only a pioneer in empirical philosophy, but was a practical politician. He was once Lord Privy Seal in the reign of James I. and was knighted as count by the same King. Although his name was disgraced by the abuse of his office, everyone would agree that he was the foremost leader of the intellectual development of England.

 Bacon was the first to elucidate the theory of hedonistic ethical principles, and in politics he was, from the beginning to the end, a confirmed utilitarian.

 Said he:

 "Nobody can be healthful without exercise, neither natural body or politic; and certainly to a Kingdom or estate, a just and honorable war is the true exercise. "

 Thus, he was a supporter of war.

 Again he said:

 "A nation should be strong either on land or sea; to be master of the sea is an abridgment of a monarchy; and the Sovereign must not relax vigilance over the neighboring nation so that she may not expand her territory or enrich herself in commerce and other fields. The secret of diplomacy is in the balancing of power and if one nation becomes strong, it is because other nations are weak; if one should gain, others are bound to lose."

 From these, we can easily see what England's national policy was. Her history of the past 350 years coincides with these theories as exactly as fingerprints.

 Thomas Hobbes

 There was also Thomas Hobbes who might be called Bacon's student. Hobbes once obtained Bacon's instruction, it is said. One day, Hobbes was following Bacon, strolling in the garden, and Bacon said something he had in his mind. On this occasion, Hobbes was the only one that could grasp what Bacon meant and could render it in writing, so the story goes.

 Hobbes also traveled in Europe and in France. He studied under the great Richelieu and in Italy he enjoyed the acquaintance of that great physicist, Galileo, who discovered the theory of earth's rotation. All these must have been great lessons to him.

 Hobbes lived around the time of the Puritan Revolution and the restoration of Charles II. In fact, when Charles II. was still the Crown Prince, Hobbes was the Royal Tutor in mathematics to the young Prince. Hobbes's political theory is known as the Doctrine of Contract, and is known the world over. This doctrine can be summed up as follows:

 "Human beings are equal in body and mind from their birth and this equality creates competition and competition, mutual struggle. But this struggle is not between a group and a group; it is a struggle of an individual against another. Owing to this struggle, there can be no industry, no art, no literature, and no social pleasure in the world but fear and danger continue. In other words, human life is lonely, poor, lewd and beastly, and life is shortened by them. Therefore, all should make a contract to select one man to be the head and to him all should swear allegiance. That would bring peace and safety. But this authority once transferred, it cannot be taken back under any circumstances. Thus, the will of the Sovereign is the law and the subjects are allowed to act outside the pale of his prohibition."

 This theory, however, cannot be said to defend the despotism of the Stuarts, for the Stuarts were already in decline. Therefore, it must be construed to be in justification of Cromwell's dictatorship, because these assertions are not a royal logic but they express submission under the powers that be.

 John Locke

 But this theory of contract was reversed by John Locke. Locke's father was a zealot for Puritanism and he inherited his father's trait. He was also a scholar and a great traveller. His "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" is one of the greatest books in the world and he is the forerunner of the empirical philosophers of England.

 Locke maintained a completely opposite view from that of Hobbes and his conception of nature was not a field of carnage as Hobbes believed and his theory of mankind is:

 ''Human existence is not a struggle between man and man, but it is a fraternal and cooperative friendliness. In order, however, to maintain this state securely, man must make an agreement of concord from his free will and this contract is only possible in this agreement. Once the contract is consummated, it is only natural to be obeyed in absolute fidelity. If, therefore, should the King violate this contract, it is reasonable for the people to oppose the King and find one to conform to this contract."

 Upon this basis, he joined the forces to exile James II in the revolution of 1688 and to invite William of Orange and Mary from Holland. His theory, therefore, was to defend this action.

 But he soon entered the enemy camp and stole the halberd, and reversed Hobbe's defense of despotism and advocated the fundamentals of liberalism. In his eyes, there was no such thing as a nation, and the nation to him was only a congregation of different peoples for a purpose of mutual expediency within limited scope, sovereign rights reserved to each individual. So his idea of nation was not unlike a limited commercial company.

 I am not here to discuss the pro and con of his theory, but it is needless to say that Locke's theory of commodity based on contract is a pertinent illustration of the English concept of a nationhood.

 Hsun Kuang And Mencius

 At any rate, Thomas Hobbes is like the Chinese sage, Hsun Kuang, who starts his argument on the basis that human nature is bad, while John Locke is like Mencius who concludes that human nature is good.

Just as Mencius endorsed revolution, Locke recognized the justice of revolution. However, the similarity stops here, for while Locke took the national administration as if it were an undertaking of a commercial firm, Mencius thought the administration was the means to realize his ideals. 

English political thought, however, influenced the Western world and Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau of France all emulated Hobbe's political theories. The declaration of the French Revolution— liberty, equality, and fraternity—had its origin in Hobbes' political philosophy.

 This political theory of social contract which originated in England made itself felt in America and emerged as the Declaration of Independence, but this was transhipped again to France from America and became the aforementioned revolutionary declaration there.

So, whether the influence was direct or indirect, the origin of this political thought was conceived and fermented in England, although Edmund Burke bitterly criticised the French Revolution.

 Hume And Bentham

 And yet, these and other theories and doctrines such as David Hume's utilitarian and hedonistic doctrine or Bentham's social equality based on his nihilistic physics and biological evolution could not transcend the pale of individualism, hedonism, and liberalism. How can one expect to see a nation, in the midst of which these three corroding "isms'' are eating its vitals, remain immune to decadence? So, now a giant called the British Empire, stated with these demoralizing doctrines and theories, is now bedridden, hopelessly diseased to the marrow of its bones and destined never to recover. (To be Continued)

Tribune (Philippines : 1932 - 1945), Sunday 23 May 1943, page 6