Ming and Qing dynasties: the power game of multiple leaders and single leaders
Preface
In the ancient officialdom of the eastern powers, the magistrates, as grassroots officials, have always played a very important role, not only need to handle local government affairs, but also need to deal with various pressures and tests from superiors. In the Ming and Qing dynasties, the role and status of the magistrate underwent some subtle changes, especially in the attitude towards the superior power. This difference is mainly reflected in the fact that the Ming Dynasty had multiple leaders of the magistrates, while the Qing Dynasty magistrates were directly responsible to the governors, which also led to their different strategies and attitudes in dealing with local affairs.
First, the Ming Dynasty Zhixian: under the leadership of the multi-headed, at a loss
1.1 The multi-headed leadership of the county magistrate in the Ming Dynasty
In the Ming Dynasty, as a grassroots official, the magistrate did not face only one leader, on the contrary, they often had multiple superiors, such as the governor, the governor, the three divisions, the provincial government, etc., which led to the need for the magistrate to face different opinions and requirements from various superiors when dealing with local affairs, which made them feel at a loss.
1.2 The confrontation and helplessness of the county
Since the magistrates of the Ming Dynasty had multiple superiors, they were often intervened and commanded by various superiors when dealing with local affairs, which was undoubtedly a great test for the magistrates, because they needed to balance between the various superiors, not to offend any party, but also to try to meet their various requirements. In order to protect the interests of the local government, some magistrates will even choose to resist the governor, which is undoubtedly a very great courage and determination, but it often brings them endless trouble and trouble.
2. Qing Dynasty magistrates: special status directly responsible to the governor
2.1 The direct appointment and dismissal of the Governor
In contrast, the Qing Dynasty magistrate was relatively cautious and pandering to the superior power, because in the Qing Dynasty, the magistrate was directly responsible to the governor, and the governor had direct personnel appointment and dismissal power, which meant that as long as the magistrate was protected and supported by the governor, he could govern without worry, without being too afraid of the power of other superiors.
2.2 The focus of the county's governance
Since the magistrates of the Qing Dynasty were directly responsible to the governors, they often focused their governance on how to cater to the governor's will when dealing with local affairs, and only when they received the governor's attention and support could they become so-called "celebrities" and thus occupy a place in the local officialdom. In contrast, the Qing Dynasty magistrates lacked the protection of the imperial court and officials, which also made them undoubtedly more cautious in handling local affairs, and even some of them were compromised, and it was difficult for them to ask for the people's lives like Hai Rui.
3. The power game between multiple leaders and single leaders
By comparing the roles and status of the magistrates of the Ming and Qing dynasties, it can be found that in fact, in the organizational system, the influence of the number and mode of leadership on subordinates is very obvious. For example, in the Ming Dynasty, the magistrate was faced with multiple superiors, which made them feel at a loss, while in the Qing Dynasty, the magistrate was directly responsible to the governor, which meant that they could receive direct power support and protection.
In officialdom, individual behavior and governance methods are often profoundly affected by the system, and the difference in behavior between the Ming and Qing dynasties is actually a manifestation of the institutional difference. Under the system of multiple leaders, the magistrates tend to feel confused and confused, which will also affect their decision-making and behavior, while under the system of single leadership, the magistrates can get direct power support, thus occupying a certain advantage in local governance.
Fourth, differences in behavior caused by different sources of power
In fact, not only in ancient officialdom, but also in modern society, people with different understandings of the source and nature of power tend to behave differently and make decisions when faced with various problems and challenges. For example, it is also very common for some officials to be accountable only to a particular leader and not to other leaders.
In officialdom, power is only responsible for the source of power, which also means that whether it is ancient or modern, the source and nature of power will directly affect the behavior and decision-making of individuals, which is why some officials will choose to "drill camp" and "pat on the back", because they are clearly aware that only with the support and protection of specific leaders can they be invincible in officialdom.
5. Power distribution and supervision mechanisms in institutional design
So, in the face of abuse of power and corruption, how should we effectively prevent and curb it? From the changes in the role and status of the magistrates in the Ming and Qing dynasties, it is not difficult to see that the power distribution and supervision mechanisms in the institutional design have a crucial impact on the behavior of officials.
Only under a reasonable system design can we effectively restrain the behavior of officials and prevent them from abusing their power and acting recklessly, which is why some Ming monarchs in history were able to implement the practice of "deposing a hundred schools of thought and respecting Confucianism alone", because they clearly understood that only through a reasonable system design can they effectively restrain the behavior of officials and promote the long-term stability and prosperity of society.
At present, in the face of various complex social problems and challenges, we also need to carry out in-depth conjecture and improvement of the appointment and supervision mechanisms of officials, and only by continuously improving and optimizing these mechanisms can we effectively prevent corruption and abuse of power and promote the long-term harmonious development of society.
epilogue
By comparing the changes in the role and status of the magistrates in the Ming and Qing dynasties, we can see that whether in ancient or modern times, the behavior and decision-making of officials were often influenced by various factors, and the design and operation mechanism of the system was a crucial part of this.
Only through reasonable institutional design can we effectively restrain the behavior of officials and promote the long-term stability and prosperity of society, and this also requires each of us to be aware and take action, participate in national governance and social construction, and strive to build a better future!