We have always held that the question of
Kuo-ti is above discussion and that what we should consider is the
actual condition of administration. If the administration
(government) is constitutional, then it matters not whether the
country is a Republic or a Monarchy. If the government is not
constitutional then neither a republic nor a monarchy will avail.
There is no connexion, therefore, between the question of Kuo-ti
and the question of Cheng-ti. It is an absurd idea to say that in
order to improve the administration we must change the Kuo-ti--the
status or form of the country--as a necessity. If this idea is to
be entertained for a single moment the changes even in
constitutional countries will be endless. But the curious paradox
is that in former days the critics said that only a republic, not
a monarchy, could be constitutional; whereas, the critics now say
that a monarchy, not a republic, can alone be constitutional!
IV. THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONSTITUTION
Let me therefore lay down a simple definition of what a
Constitution is before discussing whether the contentions of the
critics are reasonable. My opponents will agree with me that the
main principle of a constitutional government is that the
legislative organ should always balance the executive and that the
exercising of the administrative power is always limited to a
certain extent. They will also agree that the most important point
of a so-called constitutional monarchy is that the monarch should
act as a figurehead, and that the establishment of a responsible
cabinet is an indispensable accompaniment.
Pages:
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270