民心与江山：历史常态与现实政治的思考

Hearts and Thrones: Reflections on Historical Norms and Political Realities

Previously, I had a brief discussion with netizens in the comment section about a minor issue (as shown in the image). Although the discussion was quite casual, this small issue actually involves significant political logic and ethical considerations.

Here, I’ll highlight two of the most common questions:

• Does winning the hearts of the people guarantee the throne?

• Do those who conquer the kingdom have the right to rule it?

1. Winning the Hearts of the People

This phrase is often repeated and has been elevated to a level of unquestionable, almost sacred political correctness. However, a quick review of historical dynastic changes and power transitions shows that in the ruthless game of power, this saying is far less accurate than another old Chinese proverb: "Is the emperor born of noble blood? No, only the strongest army prevails."

Most of the time, the so-called “people” are an abstract entity, frequently invoked by various factions for rhetorical purposes, yet they themselves often remain silent. On rare occasions when they raise their voice, it is quickly exploited by different sides and soon falls silent again.

The "people" imagined by many—a heroic entity with boundless power, determining the fate of regimes and acting with active agency—remains a myth. Once angered, this "heroic" people are thought to rise in rebellion or at least take to the streets en masse, and all of this is imagined to happen spontaneously, without organization.

But this is nothing more than a beautiful, age-old fairy tale.

In reality, people don’t think or act like heroes. They don’t take risks or make sacrifices unless absolutely necessary. Leading ordinary lives, avoiding trouble, staying silent at critical moments in history, and worrying about day-to-day survival—this is the norm for most people.

This type of "people," manipulated like clay by dictators and ruling elites—humiliated, exploited, and trampled upon—is the historical norm.

Even in the rare moments when the people rise, it’s often not spontaneous but rather led or organized by someone.

Most historical movements were initiated and driven by a small minority—sometimes just one person. Without Hong Xiuquan’s sudden idea to create a pieced-together “God Worshipping Society” and start preaching among his acquaintances, there likely wouldn’t have been the Taiping Rebellion. Without Sun Yat-sen’s frustration after his petition to Li Hongzhang failed, leading him to promote revolutionary ideas, there likely wouldn’t have been the Xinhai Revolution.

The socialist doctrine of collectivism, which attributes everything to historical inevitability and the collective, while downplaying the role of individuals in history, is actually an idealistic view. Its purpose is merely to emphasize its own ideological framework.

By examining historical events, it becomes evident that it is the determined and often radical minority who are the real drivers of history's colorful tapestry.

As for the people, they generally fall into three categories during such events:

• The majority remain silent, swaying like grass in the wind.

• A portion supports the agitators.

• Another portion opposes them.

There’s also a variable here: the opposition faced by the agitators. Supporters of the agitators will naturally oppose their rivals, but those who oppose the agitators won’t necessarily support their rivals.

It’s a somewhat complex relationship.

The agitators only need to ensure that the combined forces of their opponents and their opponents' supporters don’t surpass their own side. If the balance of power tips in their favor, they can often ensure success.

In simpler terms: a minority draws the battle lines, and the people choose sides—this is the norm of history.

For instance, in seizing power, the key is to form a political-military faction capable of challenging the ruling regime. Without a minority taking the lead to organize such an opposing group, relying on a scattered, spontaneous, and coordinated uprising by the people to overthrow the government is largely a fantasy.

The people do have power, but it needs to be organized by a leading minority. Unorganized people are merely resources to be exploited—clay in the hands of the authorities.

2. Do Those Who Conquer the Kingdom Rule It?

This leads us to the second question: Do those who conquer the kingdom have the right to rule it?

Many criticize this notion from the perspective of modern political theory. Yet, history repeatedly demonstrates this logic, across different times and places. Even George Washington, revered in the modern era, served as the first president of the United States—effectively ruling for several years.

Why? Especially in the context of China?

In Chinese history, the "people" often symbolize the silent majority, frequently coerced and manipulated. The true force behind power struggles has always been political-military factions. And within these factions, it’s often a small minority—the so-called "few."

This minority risks their lives and those of their families, investing resources and efforts to seize power. If you ask them to step aside after victory, even if you’re the leader, they might replace you. This would carry a sense of inherent justice because disregarding their sacrifices and sidelining them would make you appear ungrateful—a leader with no legitimacy. Replacing you would be entirely justifiable.

This logic doesn’t just apply to China; it applies wherever there are people. It might even be true among extraterrestrial civilizations.

The key, under modern political frameworks, is to limit the rule of those who conquered the kingdom to one or two terms (they will likely establish transitional governments and dominate initial elections anyway). Under constitutional constraints, their power can then operate reasonably and lawfully within a system of checks and balances.

As for those who watched from the sidelines while others risked their lives, calculating that they could inherit the kingdom by promoting modern political ideals—such opportunistic thinking should be abandoned. The sacrifices of others are noted by the silent people, and when the day comes that they hold votes, they won’t choose those who merely seek to reap the benefits.

For now, I’ll leave it at this. Though still somewhat casual, I hope this serves as a starting point for reflection.