AHC: Modern administrative structure based on "Three Departments and Six Ministries"

The Three Departments and Six Ministries is an ancient administrative system based on Chinese monarchism and Confucianism. Sun Yet-sen's government model can be referenced but not directly copied off of. Can the 3-6 system adopt the modern principles of democracy and checks and balances? Is it feasible, sustainable? Have a go at it. Let your imaginations run wild, etc.
 
The part with the Six Ministries is easier because they survived till very late Qing, as in post 1900.

It's harder to keep the Three Departments separate because new administrative structures made them superfluous, so they could be collapsed into one. The easier way is probably to keep them as nominal offices, such as the case during Song times.

The true classical Three Departments and Six Ministries structure basically ceased to exist after Song, so any chance to retain their continuous existence needs to have the Song survive. The other possibility is that a very traditionalist government takes power after the Yuan. But the bigger issue is that the separate Three Departments really aren't that necessary.
 
The part with the Six Ministries is easier because they survived till very late Qing, as in post 1900.

It's harder to keep the Three Departments separate because new administrative structures made them superfluous, so they could be collapsed into one. The easier way is probably to keep them as nominal offices, such as the case during Song times.

The true classical Three Departments and Six Ministries structure basically ceased to exist after Song, so any chance to retain their continuous existence needs to have the Song survive. The other possibility is that a very traditionalist government takes power after the Yuan. But the bigger issue is that the separate Three Departments really aren't that necessary.
I feel like the Three Departments can be somehow modified to become a legislative body, i.e. parliament. That could be the foundation of a democratic system.
 
A less tumultuous 19th century could result in a Chinese government which resembles Britain's: plenty of ancient quirks and traditions continuously updated, but surprisingly little written law.

The Three Departments can obviously be refashioned into three branches of government providing checks and balances.

The Six Provinces would resemble the UK's Four Great Offices of State: while the Six Provinces retain their prestige and heritage, regular affairs are handled by ministers nominally subordinate to them.

Bonus: in a TL where China industrialized first and became global hegemon, it's plausible that every state in the world would nominally replicate this system, just like IOTL even the most oppressive dictatorships have ostensibly democratic institutions based on western models.
 
A less tumultuous 19th century could result in a Chinese government which resembles Britain's: plenty of ancient quirks and traditions continuously updated, but surprisingly little written law.

The Three Departments can obviously be refashioned into three branches of government providing checks and balances.

The Six Provinces would resemble the UK's Four Great Offices of State: while the Six Provinces retain their prestige and heritage, regular affairs are handled by ministers nominally subordinate to them.

Bonus: in a TL where China industrialized first and became global hegemon, it's plausible that every state in the world would nominally replicate this system, just like IOTL even the most oppressive dictatorships have ostensibly democratic institutions based on western models.
For a Western government, there is a clear differentiation between the executive, legislative and judiciary. I don' think it is so distinct in this system - or is there?
 
For a Western government, there is a clear differentiation between the executive, legislative and judiciary.
Not entirely true. The US system has the strong distinction between the three branches. The British system does not: the Prime Minister and all ministers are by convention also members of Parliament. Although the UK has a Supreme Court, in some cases the court of final appeal is the Privy Council. Separation of powers under the British system is not nearly as distinct.

I don' think it is so distinct in this system - or is there?

The Department of State Affairs is the executive branch. The Secretariat drafts laws and advises the Emperor in issuing edits, which sounds awfully like a legislature. The Chancellery reviews the legitimacy of edicts, which sounds awfully like a judiciary.

The separation of powers seems even more strict than under the US system: the POTUS is both head of state and also head of the executive branch. Under the Chinese imperial system, the head of the executive branch is (at least nominally) equal with the heads of the other two branches before the Emperor, who is head of state (even as a constitutional monarch).
 
Not entirely true. The US system has the strong distinction between the three branches. The British system does not: the Prime Minister and all ministers are by convention also members of Parliament. Although the UK has a Supreme Court, in some cases the court of final appeal is the Privy Council. Separation of powers under the British system is not nearly as distinct.

Makes sense. Excuse me for forgetting Question Time.

The Department of State Affairs is the executive branch. The Secretariat drafts laws and advises the Emperor in issuing edits, which sounds awfully like a legislature. The Chancellery reviews the legitimacy of edicts, which sounds awfully like a judiciary.

The separation of powers seems even more strict than under the US system: the POTUS is both head of state and also head of the executive branch. Under the Chinese imperial system, the head of the executive branch is (at least nominally) equal with the heads of the other two branches before the Emperor, who is head of state (even as a constitutional monarch).

I agree on your assessments on the Chancellery and Secretariat. I had the vauge idea of the "emperor" position being replaced with a more nominal "senior party head" who would advise the Chancellor on abiding by party ideology, while the "chancellor" position being replaced with "President", head of the executive. How does that idea sound?
 
If you want to ditch the emperor, and this is mostly just thoughts on what I read from the Wikipedia article, why not make the system at least formally a triarchy.

So there is the Secretariat, the Chancellery, and the Department of State Affairs.

Head of the Department of State Affairs is the Chancellor.
Head of the Chancellery is the Chief Judge.
Head of the Secretariat is the Chief Secretary or even Prime Minister.
The titles are of course opted for change, but I`m just giving a general idea.

So the easiest one is the Secretariat. That is obviously the legislative body, which drafts the laws and puts them into practice. It is elected like a Parliament and the leader of the majority party/leader of the majority coalition is the nominal head. Thus you might call him the Prime Minister.

Then there is the Chancellor, who heads the Departments, not the Chancellery. He is what we might term the executive. The Chancellor is directly elected, and he guides the government in the day to day affairs.

Then there is the Chancellery, which is a mix between the supreme court and the Canadian senate, being an area for sober second thought. I kind of envision them as explicitly activist judges. They cannot pass laws, but they can alter existing ones (within limits) when they are brought to their attention. Thus they don’t review all bills that get passed, but anyone can challenge them in court, so in practice any moderately controversial bill will wind up in their hands. There they make rulings on what parts are legal, and subject to shifting, which parts are illegal, and which parts are fine. A contested bill can pass through the Chancellery mostly or entirely unchanged.

The Chancellor (the executive) selects his department heads from the members of the Secretariat (doesn’t have to be from the ruling party) and they are put forward for review in the Chancellery before their positions are approved.

The Chancellor (the executive) also needs to get his big foreign policy decisions approved by the Chancellery (war and treaties, for example).

There would be different election cycles for the different groups. Say election cycles of six years for the Chancellor themself and the Secretariat, but the election of the Secretariat happens three years into the term of the sitting Chancellor and the election of a new Chancellor happens three years into the term of the sitting Secretariat.

The Chancellery would be elected as well, but maybe on a less direct method. A limited selection of candidates maybe. So there would be higher age restrictions for the Chancellory positions, along with limitations to certain applicable fields (law, academics, etc… very professional based). They might also be selected on a more federal basis rather than population basis.


Anywhooo, that’s the idea I thought of.
 
Last edited:
This is all really nice and orderly, but it resembles nothing like the rather centralized system that was the Tang Three Departments/Six Ministries.

The Chancellery wasn't a judiciary. It didn't adjudicate cases. Its focus was more on deciding whether government ideas were good ideas. It had no authority to strike down any laws or policies put forth by other government branches.

The Secretariat wasn't a legislature either. It wasn't an assembly of any sorts. It came up with laws, but it didn't pass them.

The Department of State Affairs was a lot like an executive branch as a whole, but its nominal leadership quickly lost any real authority over individual ministers.

And there was absolutely no separation of powers, so you could very get people in more than one branch at once. A person could be both a Minister in the Six Ministries as well as a head of the Secretariat or Chancellery.

And also, posts could go unfulfilled, so there'd be no head for the Department of State Affairs, the Secretariat, or the Chancellery for substantial periods. Towards later Tang, you might get one head of the Secretariat or Chancellery every few decades.

Of course, with a distant enough point of divergence, you could have the DSS, Secretariat, and Chancellery become an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch by the modern day. But anything else would be a forced interpretation, especially if we're postulating the continued existence of the Three Departments/Six Ministries as opposed to reviving the Three Departments to specifically create a tripartite government.
 
This is all really nice and orderly, but it resembles nothing like the rather centralized system that was the Tang Three Departments/Six Ministries.

The Chancellery wasn't a judiciary. It didn't adjudicate cases. Its focus was more on deciding whether government ideas were good ideas. It had no authority to strike down any laws or policies put forth by other government branches.

The Secretariat wasn't a legislature either. It wasn't an assembly of any sorts. It came up with laws, but it didn't pass them.

The Department of State Affairs was a lot like an executive branch as a whole, but its nominal leadership quickly lost any real authority over individual ministers.

And there was absolutely no separation of powers, so you could very get people in more than one branch at once. A person could be both a Minister in the Six Ministries as well as a head of the Secretariat or Chancellery.

And also, posts could go unfulfilled, so there'd be no head for the Department of State Affairs, the Secretariat, or the Chancellery for substantial periods. Towards later Tang, you might get one head of the Secretariat or Chancellery every few decades.

Of course, with a distant enough point of divergence, you could have the DSS, Secretariat, and Chancellery become an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch by the modern day. But anything else would be a forced interpretation, especially if we're postulating the continued existence of the Three Departments/Six Ministries as opposed to reviving the Three Departments to specifically create a tripartite government.

I did say it was a very loose reading of Wikipedia. I glanced and I wrote. Im sure your criticisms are on the money.

I did mean, though I didnt, mean to imply that this was sort of a very (directed on my part) evolution into the modern day. Or maybe even revival.

Again, Im no China expert. Not by a mile. Just thought I would have fun with it.:D
 
This is all really nice and orderly, but it resembles nothing like the rather centralized system that was the Tang Three Departments/Six Ministries.

The Chancellery wasn't a judiciary. It didn't adjudicate cases. Its focus was more on deciding whether government ideas were good ideas. It had no authority to strike down any laws or policies put forth by other government branches.

The Secretariat wasn't a legislature either. It wasn't an assembly of any sorts. It came up with laws, but it didn't pass them.

The Department of State Affairs was a lot like an executive branch as a whole, but its nominal leadership quickly lost any real authority over individual ministers.

And there was absolutely no separation of powers, so you could very get people in more than one branch at once. A person could be both a Minister in the Six Ministries as well as a head of the Secretariat or Chancellery.

And also, posts could go unfulfilled, so there'd be no head for the Department of State Affairs, the Secretariat, or the Chancellery for substantial periods. Towards later Tang, you might get one head of the Secretariat or Chancellery every few decades.

Of course, with a distant enough point of divergence, you could have the DSS, Secretariat, and Chancellery become an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch by the modern day. But anything else would be a forced interpretation, especially if we're postulating the continued existence of the Three Departments/Six Ministries as opposed to reviving the Three Departments to specifically create a tripartite government.
The focus wasn't on how close the original Chinese system was to its American counterpart - it was more on how the Chinese system could be modified. Thus dreadnought did an excellent job in making the modified Chinese system - just needs a few more tweaks.
 
Who passed the laws in the Chinese system? And how many people were typically in these ministries?

Chinese governments are famously "heavy"; don't know about the passing laws thing, I think it was like the laws are made by the Sec and the Emperor passes them with a stamp.
 
The focus wasn't on how close the original Chinese system was to its American counterpart - it was more on how the Chinese system could be modified. Thus dreadnought did an excellent job in making the modified Chinese system - just needs a few more tweaks.
Well, you're using a very expansive and broad definition of "modified," because you're basically creating a new government from scratch by creating a legislature and a judiciary (and there's already a judiciary of sorts in the Three Departments and Six Ministries: it's just not in the Chancellery) for this new structure. I mean, if you want to create an American style government using little more than the Tang-Song names, then I guess it suffices. But it is a fun exercise in seeing how things work out.
 
Well, you're using a very expansive and broad definition of "modified," because you're basically creating a new government from scratch by creating a legislature and a judiciary (and there's already a judiciary of sorts in the Three Departments and Six Ministries: it's just not in the Chancellery) for this new structure. I mean, if you want to create an American style government using little more than the Tang-Song names, then I guess it suffices. But it is a fun exercise in seeing how things work out.

Exactly. This was originally planned to be a thought exercise, finding out how each one is the equivalent of another. Plausibility doesn't need to be an issue here - it's more on how the fantasy government system would look like in trying to bring the two concepts of Confucianism and American democracy together.
 
The focus wasn't on how close the original Chinese system was to its American counterpart - it was more on how the Chinese system could be modified. Thus dreadnought did an excellent job in making the modified Chinese system - just needs a few more tweaks.

Bump. Don't want this to die, not yet.

Going on what I, you, and others have commented, what would you suggest?

What tweaks would you suggest for my idea? I kinda hoped someone would tweak it.
 
Top