Where Does the Image of Benevolent Governance Come From

Liu Bei's reputation as a "benevolent ruler" in later generations is largely attributed to the literary embellishment in "Romance of the Three Kingdoms." Luo Guanzhong, with the main theme of "respecting Liu and belittling Cao," portrays Liu Bei as a hero who values talent, cares for the common people, and embodies kindness and righteousness. For example, his "three visits to the thatched cottage" to invite Zhuge Liang, "weeping for Zhou Yu" to show humility, and "debating with scholars" to demonstrate elegance all establish Liu Bei as a model of virtue.

However, from the perspective of official history, while Liu Bei's concept of "benevolent governance" has traces to follow, its manifestations are more political strategies than purely moral choices. For instance, "Records of the Three Kingdoms" records that when Liu Bei first arrived in Jingzhou, he showed kindness to the scholars and common people, attracting many to join him; after occupying Yizhou, he implemented lenient policies and restored agriculture, indeed aligning with the people's will. Although these measures benefited the common people, they also met the practical needs of a new regime seeking legitimacy.

In other words, Liu Bei's image of "benevolence and righteousness" is a combination of personal reputation and political necessity. He was well aware of his humble origins and lack of foundation, and only by establishing political legitimacy through "benevolence and virtue" could he stand firm amidst the power struggles. Therefore, the so-called "benevolent governance" is both Liu Bei's political strategy and a projection of later scholars' ideals of the kingly way.

Benevolence and Reality in Governance Practice

To explore whether a regime practices benevolent governance, the key lies in whether its governance philosophy and actions truly benefit the common people. During Liu Bei's rule in Shu, although there were some benevolent measures, there were also many actions contrary to the concept of "benevolence and righteousness," revealing the complexity of his governance style.

At the beginning of Liu Bei's entry into Sichuan, he indeed demonstrated policies to stabilize the people. He ordered a reduction in taxes, repaired irrigation, and restored agriculture, allowing the war-torn people of Shu to recuperate. Historians in Shu often referred to him as "governing with courtesy and winning the people's loyalty," and there is a popular saying that "the roads are free of lost items," indicating that his early governance truly won the hearts of the people.

However, in the process of seizing Yizhou, Liu Bei did not fully adhere to the principles of "benevolence and righteousness." He first entered Shu under the pretext of an alliance, borrowing troops, and later usurped Liu Zhang's territory through gradually sidelining him and military coercion. Although this move achieved great success, it violated the Confucian doctrine of "benevolence and righteousness not deceiving," and also caused dissatisfaction among some aristocratic families.

Moreover, after the death of Guan Yu, Liu Bei launched the Battle of Yiling, sending troops to attack Wu. This battle not only severely depleted national strength but also triggered a large number of refugees and famine, ultimately ending in a disastrous defeat. This action not only disregarded the suffering of the common people but also failed to embody the path of kindness, indicating that his decision-making was also influenced by emotional and vengeful political calculations.

Therefore, although Liu Bei's governance was not devoid of the concept of moral governance, at critical junctures, he could not escape the constraints of realpolitik, and his "benevolent governance" more reflected a means of governance rather than a moral commitment that transcended the logic of power.

Is Benevolent Governance More Effective Compared to Cao Cao?

Comparing Liu Bei's "benevolent governance" with Cao Cao's "rule of law" is often used by later generations to contrast the political philosophies of the kingly way and the hegemonic way. Liu Bei emphasized moral influence and benevolence, while Cao Cao advocated for legalism and efficiency; both styles have their merits and reflect their different understandings of power structures.

Under Cao Cao's rule in Wei, there was a strong emphasis on laws and regulations, appointing people based on talent, and strict discipline. Although criticized as a "treacherous hero," his achievements in stabilizing the Central Plains, implementing the屯田 system, and rectifying officialdom are evident. In contrast, while Liu Bei's regime valued talent, it clearly lacked strength in local governance and institutional development.

For example, in the political arrangements in Yizhou, although Liu Bei employed Zhuge Liang, Fa Zheng, and others, his administrative system was loose, relying on individual capabilities and lacking systematic governance thinking. Cao Cao, on the other hand, established the position of Inspector of the Capital, integrating the administrative systems of the four provinces of Ji, Yan, Qing, and Xu, making the bureaucratic system more regularized and gradually laying the foundation for a unified state under Cao Wei.

Additionally, while Liu Bei's approach to personnel was inclusive, it also had the drawback of favoritism. For instance, appointing old subordinates like Mi Zhu and Jian Yong to important positions was often based on personal feelings rather than purely on talent. This "priority of affection" aligns with the logic of benevolence but can easily undermine public trust and affect governance effectiveness.

Therefore, while Liu Bei's "benevolent governance" is morally compelling, it is difficult to compare with Cao Cao in terms of governance effectiveness and institutional development, indicating that his political style leans more towards "moral governance" led by personal charisma rather than "good governance" with clear legal principles.

The Governance Crisis and Disillusionment of Benevolent Governance in Late Shu Han

After Liu Bei's death, Zhuge Liang succeeded as the chief minister, attempting to continue the tradition of "benevolent governance." He adhered to the principles of "integrity and frugality, lenient governance and stabilizing the people," and launched several northern expeditions to restore the Han dynasty. However, under his governance, the Shu Han regime struggled to maintain itself and could never escape its difficult situation, exposing the limitations of the "benevolent governance" concept under conditions of resource scarcity and institutional lag.

During Zhuge Liang's administration, although society could still be stabilized, the excessive reliance on northern expeditions led to immense financial pressure on Shu and exhausted the people's strength. Especially in the later period, Jiang Wei continued his legacy, engaging in years of warfare, placing a heavy burden on the people and weakening local productivity, leading Shu into an irreversible decline.

From the nature of the regime, Shu Han was not a true institutional state but rather a "family state" maintained by moral ties. When Liu Bei established the state, he claimed to be a descendant of the Prince of Zhongshan, emphasizing bloodline legitimacy to win the people's hearts, but failed to construct an effective political system and governance foundation. Its order of governance relied heavily on personal moral appeal, and once the leader changed, it was difficult to sustain.

Therefore, the decline of Shu Han was not only a military failure but also a reflection of the ineffectiveness of its governance model. Benevolent governance, as a governance ideal, faced multiple challenges in resource allocation, institutional development, and regime integration, ultimately failing to prevent the collapse of Shu Han.

Is Benevolent Governance Merely a Product of Historical Beautification?

From the perspective of cultural reception in later generations, Liu Bei's status as a symbol of "benevolent governance" is closely related to the value projection of scholars. Since the Song dynasty, Confucian thought has emphasized rightful status and moral propriety, and the scholar class tends to beautify Liu Bei's image as a ruler who "conquers people with virtue" to counter the realpolitik of power strategies.

Especially in "Romance of the Three Kingdoms," Luo Guanzhong, through various artistic processes, pushed Liu Bei's image of "loyalty, righteousness, benevolence, and virtue" to the extreme. For example, at the moment of his death, he "looked up to the sky and sighed, unable to bear human emotions," appearing tragic and moving; he appointed Zhuge Liang as prime minister, expressing "entrusting the orphan and relying on him," revealing deep trust and compassion. These plots reinforced the narrative thread of him being "invincible because of his benevolence," evoking moral resonance among readers.

However, there has always been a distance between history and fiction. While literary creation can endow characters with emotional depth and spiritual height, it inevitably obscures political realities. Liu Bei's various contradictory actions in real history, such as forcibly seizing Yizhou, engaging in reckless warfare, and showing favoritism in personnel, indicate that he was not a purely benevolent ruler but a politician constantly reconciling ideals and reality.

From this perspective, "benevolent governance" is more like a symbol, a projection of the ideal monarch by the scholar class, rather than a comprehensive reflection of Liu Bei's political practice.

Reconsidering the Concept of "Benevolent Governance"

Although Liu Bei's regime may not have fully practiced benevolent governance in reality, and its governance effects are hard to call perfect, the significance of the "benevolent governance" concept should not be entirely denied. In the context of the late Eastern Han dynasty, where rituals collapsed and music was disrupted, and wars were frequent, Liu Bei raised the banner of benevolence and righteousness, indeed bringing a sense of emotional belonging and order expectation to the common people. He valued moral governance, respected talent, and favored the scholar class, providing a refuge for the intellectual class amidst the chaos of war, and preserving the cultural spark of the "benevolence and righteousness" tradition for future political civilization.

More importantly, benevolent governance is not only a strategy for ruling the country but also a standard of political ethics. In an era where power strategies and iron-blooded conquests became the norm, some still attempted to win people over with virtue and called upon the masses with benevolence, which itself holds significant symbolic value. Even if it cannot be fully realized, it is still a directional effort.

Therefore, Liu Bei's regime may not become a perfect example of "benevolent governance," but it is one of the few political entities in traditional Chinese political history that placed the "ideal of the kingly way" on the practical agenda. His successes and failures reflect not only individual capabilities but also the eternal tension between the ideal of benevolent governance and the structure of reality.