What is the relationship between imperial power and relative power in ancient China?

The qualities of the imperial power and the power of the ministers:

1. An autocratic regime is one in which there exists in the system a supreme master who does not belong to the series of "officials" and who represents the state. The power of this supreme ruler has a double character: first, he enjoys the power of the sovereign of the state; second, his power is personal power. As far as the former is concerned, the supremacy of the imperial power is supreme and limitless, meaning that there is no secular power above it, nor is there any power parallel to it. Therefore, by this characteristic of sovereignty, it is possible to accommodate all powers; in all spheres of national life-political, economic, military, cultural, legal, religious, as well as in the whole of national life and in any of its localities-the central and local powers are as great or as great as the individual powers. -Central and local affairs, big and small, important and minor, can be included in the scope of imperial power. Such an absolute, special power, naturally, can not talk about the upper ultra vires and the infringement of parallel institutions, not to mention the infringement of the lower. As far as the latter is concerned, the emperor is as an independent, but also isolated individuals to grasp and exercise power, can not be separated from the branch and share with others, others may not replace.

The two characteristics of imperial power are themselves a contradiction. On the one hand, a lonely individual in the exercise of the huge national sovereignty, in any case, will produce energy, intelligence, ability, experience, learning and other personal subjective conditions of the limitations, and can not be used freely. On the other hand, the supreme sovereignty of the state in the hands of an individual undoubtedly gives the monarch the greatest possibilities and the most opportunities for influence over state affairs, and thus may give rise to situations in which the individual deviates from or even departs from the principles and direction of the operation of the whole state apparatus, turning the particular individual into the antagonist of the whole apparatus. The autocracy, no matter how irreversible the customs, traditions and specific historical conditions were at that time, was nothing but a form through which the ruling class was realized, a choice of political system under specific historical conditions. Moreover, the emperor (and his family), as the supreme sovereign, always belonged to a certain class. In this way, history has developed to this point - class rule must be realized by "one person", but are not willing or allowed to be easily destroyed by "one person", always want to limit the monarch's words and deeds and influence to a certain level. It is always desirable to confine the monarch's words, deeds and influence within certain limits. Therefore, in the double contradiction between the great power and the subjective condition of the individual, and between the general interest of the class and the individual's good and bad, the system of the ministers, which appeared in the dual capacity of assisting "one man" and restraining "one man", was necessary and inevitable.

2. The sovereignty of the emperor did not completely conceal the relationship between the monarch and his class. The system of chancellorship and the imperial system were *** living bodies. The emperor and the chancellor, are two opposite factors constituting the autocratic system of government, the two are antagonistic and interdependent, not only **** the beginning, but also **** the end. The survival of the prime minister, is not dependent on the will of any individual for the transfer. Even from the emperor's own will to depreciate, cut, eliminate, are against the general requirements of the whole system. Since the Han Wei not appointed three public officials, but the successive emergence of other prime ministers; Ming Taizu abolished the prime minister, and after Chengzu's "non-phase of the phase" - the emergence of the Cabinet and its role in the play of the so-called "inevitable", "can", "the situation must be to ", "can prohibit its name, can not prohibit in fact," is to show that this objective requirement is not false.

3, the institutional establishment of the prime minister, only for the solution of the above two pairs of contradictions to provide the possibility of contradictions and struggles are bound to unfold in practice and intensify. The shadow of the emperor's sovereignty over the autocracy is huge and deep. Under the premise that the monarch is equal to the sovereign, the emperor is very prone to do everything himself, leaving aside the auxiliaries and the constraints, and destroying the system of monarch-philosophy, which is the intensification of the two pairs of contradictions. The main aspect of the problem obviously lies in the monarch. However, hard constraints, limit the emperor's laws and regulations are neither possible to produce, nor can exist, therefore, looking to the soft theoretical rules of constraints, not only is necessary, must be, but also the only way. The emergence and repetition of the theory of appointment and responsibility, which emphasizes the "style and division of duties" and "the duties of the king", the underlying meaning of which is not difficult to detect.

The monarchical system, in which sovereignty was entrusted to one person, naturally gave rise to the idea that the monarch could and even had to be personally involved in all the affairs of the world; whereas the chancellorship system nourished the idea of appointing the monarch and the prime minister as a whole. The inherent contradiction of the system was inevitably externalized into a theoretical conflict between the two types of theories. From the pre-Qin to the end of the Qing Dynasty, the emperor in person, prime ministers to compete for the job, in person and appointed to the theoretical battle again and again, can not be avoided, the pressure does not rest.