Values and Political Neutrality

There are always debate regarding that of culture, hierarchical system and that of political neutrality and rights. It is almost always assumed that we cannot have one without the other. It is not just complementary but in fact, it supports each other insofar that it protects both rights and values.

The common gripe that Western criticisms against traditional "authoritarian" or "paternalistic" rule is that it is not political neutral and therefore trespasses on the rights of the indviduals to express themselves and act without fear or repercussions.

Traditional Asians on the other hand criticizes the Western model that it is without morals and will descend into anarchy much like what we see in Clockwork Orange. Hence there is a constant tug of war between that of what is good[values] and what is positive [ which is political neutrality].

The Western model have been used to justify the attack of "traditional" hierarchical system as restrictive and draconian. But ultimately really, both are more similar than they are different.

Much of the Western system is predicated on upholding of the legal system and it has proven to be an anti-thesis towards the traditional system which prides on consensus and "non-foreign intervention". The reason being is that the hierarchical system can only continued via culture and seldom via law as it would be attacked on basis of political neutrality.

The traditional paternalistic and hierarchical system maintains order, rights and duties via rituals and "li" [ or manners and customs in Mandarin]. Therefore the process is as much as important as the outcome. The Western model focused on the legal system as a means to end: which is to upholding rights and duties. Hence the process is much more transparent and outspoken which is really quite antithetical to that of traditional hierarchical models which prides consensus and quiet understanding then naked display of displeasure.

Therefore the common accusation that Western model has on the traditional ones would be that one does not respect the rights of indviduals and hence a legal system must be enacted to protect the rights of all citizens. But the traditional model has a way of dealing with this inequality: which is the idea of "li". Follow the rituals and you would be rewarded accordingly.

This can be highlighted in the manner of which one have legal capacity to decide on matters of material concern or sui juris. Most legal systems both in the Western world and Asian ones, put it between 18-21. Hence in effect, the paternalistic instinct and rights should have stopped since insofar that legally, he/she is recognized by the law to be of capacity to decide. Traditional hierarchical system have a similar system: in which that he goes through a certain ritual of which to ascertain that he/she has attained adulthood. Most systems of this model normally put it on marriage hence there is a tendency of all Asian parents to ensure that they get married: as there is as much an economic incentive to do so as much as it is cultural. Therefore the paternal instinct would have to stop at this particular juncture.

Hence most traditional system protects the rights and ensure the duties of it's people therefore via means of rituals and manners. Rituals and manners are important insofar that they ensure that your rights are not trampled upon because you have performed your duties. But similarly, in the manners of rituals, there would caveats of which paternalism has it's limits. The only problem lies therefore in the "benevolence" of the leader of which to recognize the limits. Since there are no transparent rules stating any recourse insofar that the leader must follow these rules as much as his subjects follows them as well.

Therefore a revolt and rebellion is as much legitimate as one that of a revolution in the Western models. Insofar that I think there are more rebellion in Chinese history than there are in the Western ones because it is really more informal than they are formal. Unlike those of the Magna Carter or Declaration of Rights which is really quite watershed as it is formalized in form.

Like the above, the system biggest flaw insofar is that of an asymetrical flow of information. By definition, rituals and culture is transmitted via the older and the younger and if the young cannot read since it was not enacted formally then and the older would have unequal control of information and therefore can justify punishment on the basis of "not following traditions". One would then be forever beholden to the old for this culture transimission.

Hence, therefore Western model would then come in pretty useful in terms of that of a sui juris. Insofar that father/child relationship is kept paternalistic up to a certain age which intention is to guide the child along, up to a certain age- the father must relinquish paternalistic rights over the child. And if insofar that, the child did not "follow" traditions or of "ideal" models, then the fault would lies both with the child and the parent. In reality, this is no different from that of a traditional model, of which is the ritual of attaining adulthood.

Hence in effect, the child would have his own family or "domain" to "paternalize" over. Therefore then in effect, values- or what is good- can be ensured and political neutrality- which is rights and duties- can be obtained without in reality having to choose. Hence in reality, the Western Models and traditional Asian ones are really more similar than they are different- what I do believe the crucial factor in the latter would be that of "benevolence" which forms the basis of legitimacy of the latter. Benevolence therefore ensures a reciprocal relationship between the father/child and so on. Otherwise, a rebellion is more likely than not.