Conditions in the next two or three years will not
be very much different from what they are now. Therefore, the
contention that the administration will be changed overnight for
the better after a change in the form of the State is, if not a
wicked untruth to deceive the common people, the ridiculous
absurdity of a bookworm. Thus the theory that a constitutional
monarchy will immediately follow, if the President consents to
become a monarch, is also fallacious.
Can it be possible that those who are now holding up the
constitutional principle as a shield for their monarchical views
have a different definition for the term "constitution"? The Ching
(Manchu) Dynasty considered itself as possessing a constitution in
its last days. Did we recognize it as such? Let me also ask the
critics what guarantee they have to offer that the constitution
will be put into effect without hindrance as soon as the form of
State is changed. If they cannot give any definite guarantee, then
what they advocate is merely an absolute monarchy and not a
constitutional monarchy. As it is not likely to be a
constitutional monarchy, we may safely assume that it will be an
imperial autocracy. I cannot regard it as a wise plan if, owing to
dislike of its defects, the Republic should be transformed into an
Imperial autocracy. Owing to various unavoidable reasons, it is
excusable in spite of violent opposition to adopt temporarily
autocratic methods in a republican country.
Pages:
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273