This article contributes to the hitherto limited scholarship on the Chinese federalist movement in the 1910s and 1920s by conducting a thorough investigation of its ideological underpinnings and political blueprints. It compares the federalist ideas, plans, and activism of three thinkers—Zhang Taiyan, Zhang Shizhao, and Chen Jiongming—who stood firmly against the centralist trajectory of state-building in China after 1911 and advocated the formation of a Chinese federation. It argues that Chinese federalists, instead of emulating Western models, critically engaged with a broad spectrum of ideologies—Daoism, Buddhism, social Darwinism, parliamentarianism, guild socialism, anarchism etc.—when formulating their federalist agendas. Emphasizing the Chinese tradition of self-government, which underwent reinterpretations during the late Qing and early Republican periods, this article examines the extent to which Chinese federalism presented an alternative to Western political modernity.

Against the background of increasing social diversification in a market economy, this paper examines the challenges confronting China’s existing power structure and system of authority. Both to overcome the legitimation crisis of ruling and to achieve a soft landing of the political reform depend on reconstructing the authority of the rule of law through judicial reform as the breakthrough point. For this very reason, the top-level design of regime transition can follow a two-step strategy of building a rule of law country first, to be followed by restructuring power, so as to achieve democracy via the rule of law. It also proposes a conception to institutionalize the rule of law, emphasizing that the alternative three-review mechanism is both necessary and feasible, in that a top-level design of judicial review can contribute to our strivings for judicial fairness, an implementation of budget review and accountability review at the grassroots level for fiscal democracy, and the synergy of high-level and grassroots powers for a virtuous circle between the rule of law authority and democratic polity in mutual enhancement. There also comes the moment for plural efforts to both drive and achieve the rule of law based on the three-review mechanism.