Each society as it exists through time has a particular philosophy of history. This point, where “ . . . historical and political theory meet” is “a set of ideas about what happens, what can be known and what [is] done” in a society.1 This philosophy of history is intimately intertwined with the foundational myths of a particular society. The myths are important in new societies (such as New Zealand) or where new governments with radically different institutional and social character (such as the People’s Republic of China [PRC]) are established because it is necessary for them to legitimize the organization and use of political power.2 The way in which these foundational events are understood (which of course varies from one period to the next and among individuals), is to one extent or another, part of each nation’sidentity. Thus, to a certain extent foundational history is constitutionalhistory as it serves to legitimize the authoritative exercise of power. Ina constitutional system “[L]egitimacy is understood to refer not only towhether a power exists atall, butalso to the basis upon which the power is exercised… .”3The establishmentofa dominant paradigm offoundational history the continuous dispute and re-interpretation of such historycan haveaprofound effecton theconstitutionaldevelopment of the state.
The PRC’s foundationalmyths are simultaneously ancient andmodern. The Chinese state traces the nation’s dynastic beginnings backinto the “mists of time.”4At the same time, thetwentieth-centuryChinese revolution and the subsequent establishment of the PRC in 1949 arealso important to the political and cultural environment. Thishistory and the policy narrative upon which it is premised has been adominantcomponent of natural resource policy in the PRC. Itprivilegesanationallydirected policyapproachto naturalresourceissues while depreciating local differences as to the preservation,conservation,and use ofnatural resources. This approach to naturalresourcepolicy,which in manywaysisconsistentwith thehistoricalefforts of the central government to extend itscontrol over peripherallocal governments and natural resources, has been criticizedas ineffectiveand inappropriatefor protectingand conservingtheenvironment and biodiversity.It fails toprioritizeecological valuesover economic values and it has been poorly implemented due toambiguity in policy statements,enabling laws and regulations.Additionally, it has been criticized as having too limited publicparticipation in formulation and implementation as wellas less thanadequate enforcement.5
This centralizationprocess can be particularly problematic for ethnicminority peoples. For many of these groups, an involvement intheplanningand implementation ofnaturalresourceand biodiversityplanning is of paramount importance. Their resource use andpracticescan have a profound impact on the success of biodiversity programs.This resource use often involves subsistenceand cultural uses. They The establishment of a dominant paradigm of foundational history or the continuous dispute and re-interpretation of such history can have a profound effect on the constitutional development of the state.
A CHINESE MODEL