The problem of Yuan Shikai’s class attribution and evaluation

There are two main opinions about Yuan Shikai’s class attribution. One is that he was a very important representative of the large landlord and comprador class in modern Chinese history, and a feudal autocrat who disguised himself as a reformer.²⁸ The other is that Yuan Shikai, like Sun Yat-sen and Zhang

Jian, belonged to the Chinese capitalist class, but under the semi-colonial and semi-feudal condition, the way through which Yuan Shikai became a capitalist was different from that of Sun and Zhang. Yuan Shikai and Sun Yat-sen had the same historical background - the national crisis caused by the invasion of foreign capitalism, and the same goal - to save the nation from subjugation and ensure its survival and prosperity, which meant that there existed weak or strong ties of interests between them. But the degree and timing sequence of their bourgeois transformation was utterly different, and their social status was also markedly different. It was this very contradiction among all levels of the bourgeoisie which made them go on the road of political conflict.²⁹ Regarding the evaluation of Yuan Shikai, there was a significant change before and after the 1980s. Before the 1980s, influenced by the book Yuan Shikai - the Arch Usurper of State Power first published in 1946 by Chen Boda, academics generally took a negative and critical attitude toward Yuan Shikai. After the 1980s, with the reform and opening up of China and the implementation of the principle of seeking truth from facts, most scholars believed that the development of social history has its objectivity, stage, and inevitability. Therefore, the study of historical figures should be carried out in the process of historical development. As a historical figure during the period of the late Qing Dynasty and the early Republic of China, Yuan Shikai did play a negative role in some aspects, such as the restoration of monarchy. However, his positive role in the modernization of China’s politics, military, economy, culture, diplomacy, education and other aspects should be acknowledged, and we should not simply consider him as an arch usurper of state power. This cognitive change created a good academic research condition and atmosphere for the accurate and comprehensive evaluation of Yuan Shikai. Many scholars confirmed Yuan Shikai’s contributions to the politics, economy, and other aspects of the late Qing Dynasty and early Republic of China.³⁰ From the perspective that “weak countries have no diplomacy”, scholars also attempted to give a more reasonable explanation to his “traitorous” diplomatic behavior, such as signing the “Sino-Japanese Treaty of 1915” with Japan which was a revised draft of the “Twenty-one Demands” and a treaty of national betrayal and humiliation.³¹