Chinese academics have talked a lot about legal culture, but only a little about the general system of legal regulations on cultural activities.

There is, to be sure, some connection between the two, but not much. Some regulations are necessary, say, for protecting intellectual property rights, preserving intangible cultural heritage, and protecting minority languages and so on, but they do so from a negative rather than a positive perspective, preventing destruction rather than mandating a direction.

When the government goes further and tries to positively "lead" the cultural development of the country, it simply goes too far because culture can only develop in an environment free from government interference.

Cultural development shares the same patterns with economic development. For the past 30 years, China has been trying to implement market economy and has achieved some success, because it allows a degree of economic freedom. The planned economy simply failed because the government had no information on consumer preferences.

Of course, the government needs to establish macroeconomic regulation, since the market fails sometimes, but that role must remain subsidiary.

The same rule applies, with even more rigor, to cultural development. When we talk about development in China, it often means development led by the government. But this parallels the failed planned economy.

Likewise, culture cannot be planned. Once the government takes the lead in cultural development, the only consequence is that culture will wane rather than prosper.

Nowadays, what cultural brands can we proudly show to foreigners? I'm afraid there are none. But if the government opens up the cultural market and leaves abundant room for popular creativity, Chinese culture will bloom. 

Moreover, the government is not an abstract concept, but a particular group of officials that represent specific interests. When the government extends its influence into national culture, it is bound to promote nepotism and special interests.

When these regulatory positions are taken by inferior people, and when critical decisions are made by people primarily concerned with their own interest, how can we expect them to do the right thing to promote cultural development? 

We Chinese are a smart people, but we lack wisdom as a nation. We have long failed to comprehend and practice this Daoist wisdom: Governing a vast empire is like cooking a small fish.

In many cases the government doesn't need to busy itself with this or that, it has simply to stand aloof and leave the people free to act, then the people themselves will bring about prosperity.

Cultural development is no exception. Leave people the freedom to think, to speak and to create, and the culture of the nation will quickly become rich and robust.

And government inaction in the cultural field is not only philosophical wisdom, but also a constitutional command.

Article 35 of the 1982 Constitution dictates that citizens shall have freedom of speech and the press. In interpreting a similar clause in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, then Supreme Court  justice Oliver Wendell Holmes appealed to the theory of the "marketplace of ideas." Culture will not prosper until this market of ideas is respected by the government.

The author is a law professor at Peking University. The article was based on his recent speech at a symposium organized by the Law School, Minzu University of China. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn