In sect ion six I discussed the importance of national laws, saying that each citizen plays two roles in regard to them. I continue that discussion here, elaborating in even greater detail the function and duty of citizens.
Each citizen has a double role. The first is to be subordinate to the government with the mentality of a guest. The second is to join together with the other citizens of the nation to form a company, as it were, that is called the nation, to enact and implement the laws of the nation. This involves the mentality of being a master. For example, if a hundred merchants form some commercial company, establish the rules of the company and implement them, then the hundred merchants are the masters of that company. But once the national laws have been established, the said merchants become guests of that company as well, and must obey those laws. The nation is like a company, and its citizens like the colleagues of the company. Each individual plays the roles of both master and guest.
I To take up first their status as guests: the citizens of a nation must honor the laws of the land, and not forget the principle of the equality of men. If I do not want my rights violated by others, then I must in turn not infringe upon the rights of others. Since others enjoy the same things as I do, I must not take my pleasure by robbing from those of others. I must not steal to enrich myself. I must not kill or slander another. I must correctly uphold the law, and live according to the great principle of the equality of men. Again, there is no reason recklessly to violate laws enacted by the government, even if they are stupid or inconvenient to me. The government has the authority to declare war and conclude treaties with foreign nations. As this authority was originally conferred to the government from the nation under a contract, a person not connected with the administration of the government should not criticize its conduct. If this principle is forgotten, and people think that the measures of the government do not suit their own private liking, or if they criticize it as they wish, thus violating their agreement with the government, or if they raise up arms in revolt against the government, then the government of a country will not last a single day.
Let me go back to my analogy of the company of the hundred merchants. On the basis of common agreement, they elect ten men within the company to be its managers. If the directives of those managers do not please the private opinions of the remaining ninety, so that each criticizes the rules of the company, and goes out to purchase sweet rice cake wholesale while the managers want to sell sake, many different decisions will be taken at once. If they begin to negotiate for the sweet rice cake on their own private initiative, thus violating the laws of the company and conflicting with the others, the business of the company will also not last a single day. As the company finally goes bankrupt, its loss will be suffered equally by each of the one hundred members. Avowedly this is a most stupid thing to do. In like manner, even if the laws of a country are unjust and inconvenient, there is no reason to take that as an excuse to break them. If there are actually points which are unjust and inconvenient, people should peacefully state their case to the government, who are the managers of the country, in order to have these laws amended. If the government does not accede to their private view, the people should do what they can, and at the same time be patient, waiting for the proper time to come.
II To take up secondly their status as masters, the citizens of a nation are at the same time the government itself. Since not every person can directly administer the affairs of state, that is entrusted to the government, which contracts to serve as the representative of the people. Accordingly, the people are the real masters and bosses; the government is their representative and manager. In our example, the ten men elected by the commercial company of a hundred merchants are the government, the remaining ninety are the people. The ninety do not directly run the affairs of the company which they have delegated to their representatives. But if they consider their own status, they cannot help but call themselves the actual bosses of the company. Again, the ten managers who execute the present affairs of the company have been entrusted to execute business according to the will of the whole company; therefore, they are not making private decisions but official ones of the company. Similarly, the affairs of government are not private affairs of government officials, but are public affairs of the nation as a whole executed by the representatives of the people.
The government receives the mandate of the people. According to its role in the contract, it must seek to promote the rights of all, without distinction between noble and base and high and low, and must not exhibit even one degree of injustice and selfishness in its correct application of the law and punishment of crime. If bandits should illegally break into a person’s house, but the government is incapable of controlling them, then it can be said to be in collusion with the bandits. If the government cannot fulfill the principles of the national law, and causes the people to suffer financial losses, it must make reparations, irrespective of amount and age. Thus, for example, if a government official, through his own negligence, was responsible for a loss incurred by a citizen or a foreigner, he should have to pay a reparation of, say, thirty thousand yen. Since in principle the government does not have its own money, the ones who ultimately pay the bill are, of course, the people. If this thirty thousand yen is proportioned among the Japanese population of thirty million, it comes to ten mon per person. If the negligence of the official costs ten times as much, each citizen ends up paying one hundred mon. That would amount to five hundred mon in a family of five. If the poor farmers in the rural districts had five hundred mon to spend, they could call their wives and children together to celebrate an appropriate feast, and spend the whole night in merriment. Would it not be a miserable thing if through the negligence of one public official the innocent people throughout Japan would be forced to be deprived of their greatest of pleasures? It is unreasonable that the citizens themselves have to foot the bill for such stupidity, but what can be done about it? They themselves are the masters and bosses. They originally contracted to entrust the handling of affairs to the government. Since both losses and gains are to be shared by the masters, they cannot be critical of the carelessness of the officials only when they lose money. Therefore the people must always be careful. If they are anxious in heart at the dealings of the government, they should peacefully and frankly state their cases.
Since the people are already the masters of the country, it is their essential obligation to pay for the expenses taken to protect the country. They should hardly grumble over this. To protect the country, salaries must be paid to officials, army and navy appropriations made, and there will be expenses for the law courts and local officials as well. The total sum of this amount seems very great, but it is not so bad if apportioned among the total population. Annual tax revenue in Japan comes to only one or two yen per person. To pay this small amount in return for the protection of the government, so as not to have to fear night burglars or bandits when travelling alone, and to be able to pass one’s whole life in peace and security, is indeed a great bargain.
There are relatively profitable businesses everywhere, but there would seem to be nothing as economical as buying the protection of the government through paying taxes. Nowadays there are men spending money on building houses, and striving to acquire the finest clothes and foods. Even worse, there are people ruining their fortunes on amusements and pleasures. The money these people spend is incomparably more than the amount of taxes they pay. If it is spent illicitly, they should hesitate to spend even a single sen. But since tax revenue is money spent not only rightfully, but to purchase the most economical of things, they should pay their taxes gladly.
It is an ideal situation when both the people and the government fulfill their respective roles and come to a mutual understanding in the above way. But when this is not the actual situation, those who are the government may transcend their limits to execute a tyrannical rule. In that instance, the people have only three courses of action. First, they may surrender their integrity and submit to the government. Secondly, they may resist the government by force of arms. Thirdly, they may go as far as sacrificing their lives to uphold the principle of justice.
The first of these courses of action would be extremely immoral. It is the duty of the people to obey the just Way of Heaven. But when they surrender their integrity to follow the evil ways contrived by the government, they are violating their duties as men. Moreover, when they surrender their integrity to obey such laws, they create corrupt practices in the country as a whole by leaving a legacy of evil precedents to their children. Since ancient times, there have been tyrannical governments over stupid people in Japan as well. If the government moved to extend its empty prestige, the people shook with fear. They knew that the government’s dealings were actually unjust, but they were afraid that if they clearly voiced an opinion about it, the government would become incensed, or they would be made secretly to suffer by the officials in the future. Thus they did not say what should have been said. They cringed as if the officials would rub their noses in dog duty. The people were afraid of such a ludicrous reprisal. Their mentality was to bend before the government, no matter how unjust. Their spirit permeated the whole society which has finally fallen into the wretched condition of today. When they surrendered their integrity, they bequeathed calamity to their descendants.
The second recourse is to resist the government by force of arms. Of course, this requires many men, and therefore political cliques must inevitably be formed. This gives rise to civil war. And therefore such a course of action cannot be called the best policy. For the time being the question of right and wrong must be set aside, and, once war has been declared, we need only consider which side has more power. If we survey the history of rebellions in both past and modern times, the power of the people has always been weaker than that of the government. If they do rise up in rebellion, they should of course overthrow the past framework of the government. But no matter how corrupt the old regime was, if the new one is also such, there would be no justification for it to hold the reins of power for even a few years. Even if they overthrow it out of temporary impulse, it would only be to substitute one form of stupidity and tyranny with another. Moreover, civil wars are caused by the inhumane treatment inflicted upon the people in the past. But there is nothing more inhumane than civil war. The bonds between friends are torn asunder; worse, parents and children become each other’s killers, brothers become each other’s enemies; homes are burnt down and people slaughtered—thus, evil deeds run rampant. In such frightful circumstances people’s hearts become inured to cruelty. As they perform actions which may be called almost beast-like, will they aspire to administer affairs better than the old government, to lighten the burden of the law, so that they can lead the people of the whole country to walk the path of benevolence and human sentiment? I say that such thoughts are wrong.
The third course of action is to be prepared to sacrifice one’s life to uphold just principles. This entails trusting confidently in the principle of Heaven. It entails that no matter how bitter the law under which individuals are made to suffer by a tyrannical government, they endure that suffering without letting their spirits break. Neither taking up arms nor using even the slightest degree of violence, they only bring pressure to bear upon the government by advocating just principles. And this third way must be said to be the best policy. If rational pressure is brought to bear upon the government, the existing good administration and laws will not at all be harmed. Their just arguments may perhaps not be adopted, but since it is clear that they stand to reason, the innate sentiment of men will be swayed by them. What is not accomplished this year will be accomplished in the following year. Moreover, there is danger that resistance against the government through force of arms will destroy a hundred things in pursuit of one goal, whereas rational persuasion will sweep out only those evils that should be eliminated, without creating additional troubles. Since their objective is to put an end to governmental injustice, criticism can be stopped as the government returns to just ways. Further, armed resistance will bring angry counter-resistance. Instead of reconsidering its own evils, the government will brandish its tyrannical power all the more, even resorting to further force. But as even a tyrannical government and its officials are citizens of the same country, the sight of their fellow countrymen quietly advocating truth by sacrificing their own lives to uphold the principles of justice will ultimately win their hearts. Once this happens, they will repent of their own wrongdoings, naturally throw off their arrogance, and reform their ways.
Such persons who are concerned about their country and undergo sufferings or even sacrifice their lives because of it, are called martyrs in the West. Although a martyr gives only his own life, his accomplishment is superior to a civil war which kills innumerable others and costs an incalculable sum of money. Since ancient times, many Japanese have died on the battlefield or committed seppuku. They have all been highly praised as loyal retainers. But the reason for their heroic deaths was in most cases related to a war between two lords who were vying for political supremacy, or to perform some vendetta for their lord. To give one’s life so nobly may seem in outward appearance to be admirable, but in actual fact it was of no benefit to society. The idea that the mere sacrifice of one’s life is everything, whether it is for the sake of one’s lord or out of apology to him, is common in illiterate and uncivilized societies. But in the light of modern civilization, such people must be said not to have known the true reason for sacrificing their lives.
In essence, civilization means to advance the levels of knowledge and virtue of the people, so that each and every person can be the master of his own affairs in his dealings with society. It means that, without harm to either side, every person enjoys his own rights and thereby contributes to the security and prosperity of all.
In this light, were civil wars or vendettas actually in accord with the purpose of civilization? Dying in battle or in a vendetta may seem to have been rational if there was the sure prospect that the society would be enabled to become more civilized by creating business and industry and contributing to the general security and prosperity—that is, only through the agency of winning a civil war and destroying the enemy, or accomplishing the vendetta and saving the lord’s honor. But in actual fact these were never the goals. Probably even the famous loyal retainers did not entertain such intentions. They must have acted only out of bounden obligation and apology to their lords.
Indeed, if we call “loyal retainers” such people who sacrifice their lives out of apology to their masters, there are many such examples in society even today. A certain servant, while on an errand for his master, loses one ryō of gold. At his wit’s end, he decides that he cannot apologize, and so he ties his loincloth to the branch of a tree and hangs himself. If we truly consider this loyal servant’s frame of mind when he resolved to kill himself, we must pity him. He went out on an errand, but took his own life before returning. He thus becomes an eternal hero whose story makes us moisten our sleeves with tears. To kill oneself to fulfill the master-servant relationship after having lost one ryō of gold received in trust is no less noble than the stories of the loyal retainers of the past and present. However, while his loyalty should shine bright like the sun and the moon, and his meritorious deed should be eternal with the heaven and the earth, people are all coldhearted and belittle this servant. They make no memorial stone to commemorate his deed, and build no shrine to worship him. Why is this? People will say, “Because the servant’s death was merely for the one ryō of gold. The reason was too trivial.”
But we cannot discuss the relative gravity of a deed merely in terms of the amount of money or number of persons involved. Our criterion should be whether it was beneficial to the advance of civilization. Though the loyal samurai died in battle while killing ten thousand of the enemy and poor Gonsuke hanged himself for losing one ryō of gold, they were truly the same in regard to the fact that neither of them benefited civilization through their deaths. Since neither can be more highly evaluated, we may say that neither knew the true reasons for giving their lives. Neither can either be called a martyr. From what I know, there was only one person from ancient times who advocated human rights, who brought pressure to bear upon the government by championing the cause of justice, and who remained steadfast and kept his integrity to the end, when he sacrificed his life. This was Sakura Sōgorō,† whose biography is found only in popular fiction handed down by the people, but whose true story has still not been told by the historians. Some future day, if his history becomes clear, I shall record it and reveal his merits and virtues, to offer them as a model to men.
