Professor David Elstein, ICLP Alumnus, shared his expertise on democracy from the perspective of New Confucian Philosopher Mou Zongsan (牟宗三) (1909-1995).  Mou asserted, contrary to widespread dissenting opinion, that Confucianism is not incompatible with liberal democracy: "Confucianism in China did not have democracy, but it's not because it can't or shouldn't, but rather because various historical and cultural factors prevented it from evolving.  However, we can take elements from western democracy which are completely consistent with Confucianism and thus get Confucian democracy out of that," Elstein paraphrased.

　　Mou said China possessed zhidao (治道), an administrative apparatus to work "the nuts and bolts" of institutions.  The civil service was relatively open, equal, and democratic, as evidenced by its examination system.  Yet what it had in zhidao, it lacked in zhengdao (政道): "There was no conception of sovereignty and how political power should be transferred, so the only way to do it was conquest," Elstein explained.  With no systematic way to transfer authority, political unrest often lead to revolt and sometimes culminated in a new government's rise to power.

　　Mou attributed the spread of democracy in the West to both reasoning and circumstance.  While China primarily used synthetic reasoning, the West used analytic reasoning.  Moreover, democracy emerged in the West as a consequence of the Enlightenment concept, which Christian doctrine further reinforced, that we are all equal before God.  That notion of equality, along with the popularization of fundamental human rights, reinforced the common people's demands to participate in the government and ultimately paved the way for democracy.

　　Mou looked to his predecessors to find similar cornerstones for democracy in Confucianism.  Mou first considered Mencius's (孟子) principle of innate human goodness (性善), from which he derived a form of collective equality.  If all people commonly possess a good human nature, then in a sense, everyone is on equal footing.  Mou also contemplated the Ming Dynasty Confucian Wang Yangming's (王陽明) idea of intrinsic moral awareness (良知).  Wang claimed that everyone was endowed with a universal moral sense: namely, a conscience.

　　Synthesizing these philosophers' assertions, Mou contended that we are equal in terms of moral potential.  We are endowed with innately good human nature and universal moral awareness, and so we all have the capacity to become moral human beings.  However, developing into a moral person requires freedom.  Thus, drawing from his predecessors, Mou establishes two pillars of liberalism: equality and freedom.

　　Mou next turned his attention to preserving such freedom. His answer, in short, was democracy.  Rights, rule of law, and elections are three vital components of a democracy that not only protect the freedom of the people but also facilitate a smooth transfer of power.  Professor Elstein went on to explain the sort of freedom that Mou was concerned about preserving.  Mou was wary of embracing "negative freedom" (things the state cannot do to you) in isolation, for that would promote self-centeredeness, alienation, and nihilism (since according to negative freedom, all desires are equal, none have intrinsic value).  Instead, he thought a combination of both positive and negative freedom was best, for under positive freedom people are most able to develop their moral potential, his primary concern.  According to Mou, only after having developed your moral potential are you really free.

　　So how can we advance people's moral potential?  Mou saw education as an appropriate way, within limits, to promote Confucian values.  We could teach people basic Confucian values, such as filial piety, respect, and honesty, and encourage their development.  As Mou saw it, these values help people become themselves.  Instilling Confucianism by coercive force was out of the question.

　　Today, Mou's convictions are manifested in Taiwan's public education system.  For example, students are required to take a citizenship class as well as a morality class where part of the curriculum focuses on Confucian virtues.  In an interview with the ICLP Bulletin, Elstein said that you might see the effect of such teachings in Taiwan's sense of community: "You hear people in Taiwan sometimes talk about something being a guochi (國恥), a national shame, meaning it reflects badly on everyone.  You don't hear that much in the U.S.  The relation with the whole is kind of different.  Ideas like that, again, I don't think are because of Mou Zongsan, but are very similar to things that he does say: that the state is responsible for what citizens do, and citizens are responsible for the state. There is a kind of tighter relationship, you could say."

　　In the United States, individual rights are of first and foremost importance, but according to Elstein, "We have this facade of neutrality, but what's actually being pushed is this liberal notion of freedom where you're supposed to decide on your own. [This] liberal conception of not teaching values in schools in the West is in itself a value-laden system."  He maintained that education pushes values no matter what, though, and Mou Zongsan had recognized that fact and thought it best to use school to help develop people's moral potential.

　　In his final remarks, Elstein suggested that the U.S. could learn from Mou's upfront stance on education.  He praised Mou for acknowledging that education always pushes values.  Elstein said, "We smuggle in some positive freedom in the U.S. and anywhere already, and there's some virtue to admitting it, and maybe thinking about it in a little more systematic way.  What kind of values do we really want to push, given that we're going to be pushing some values?"