There were no concessions but lectures at the Shenzhen meeting of Beijing officials with Hong Kong’s Pan Democrats. The tough stance served only to stiffen the latter’s resolve to vote down government’s proposals. Beijing’s warning about voters’ reprisal was unconvincing. The Pan Democrats’ voters expected them to oppose, not to support, the current electoral package. Stanford University professor Larry Diamond calls Beijing’s version of universal suffrage an insult to intelligence. Click here
The elephant in the room is lack of mutual trust. But trust cannot be demanded. It can only be built on working relationships. However, if Pan Democrats are forever precluded from taking part in governing, how can any working relationships be established?
Nevertheless, vetoing down Beijing’s endorsed proposals is unlikely to create trust with Beijing, given the latter’s take-it-or-leave-it logic.
Reality and politics, however, are less straightforward. The Occupy Movement with stirrings of “self-determination” has concentrated Beijing’s mind. The Basic Law contains provisions designed to ensure that any Chief Executive elected by universal suffrage must be trusted by Beijing not to let Hong Kong drift towards separatism. As the Chief Executive is accountable to Beijing, it is difficult to imagine how One Country Two Systems can work otherwise. This reality cannot be dismissed by any foreign democratic models, however desirable.
Hong Kong now stands at a historic crossroads. The Pan Democrats are privileged to push Hong Kong in one direction or the other. One points to deepening mistrust with Beijing while Hong Kong continues to be torn apart by endless quarrels and confrontations. The other holds out the possibility of building a more trustful relationship with Beijing and a society less embroiled in internal squabbles and more able to focus on the future.
Richard Bush, Senior Fellow at John L Thornton China Centre at the Brookings Institution, Washington DC, recognizes that Hong Kong’s next (Chief Executive) election may offer a “narrow pathway” for improving democratic governance. Click here
All this may sound plausible but rather hopeless. However, politics, as they say, is the art of the possible. There is a real and practical way for the Pan Democrats to win both ways.
The Pan Democrats should continue to hold fast to their democratic principles with their “collective” veto from start to finish. However, notwithstanding any “bundling” of votes, a small but sufficient number of Pan Democrats may eventually contend that while they hate the government’s proposals, securing a quantum jump from 1,200 to five million voters for Chief Executive, in however restricted form, would be a large stepping stone in the march for democracy. So, continuing rhetoric of veto intentions aside, when the voting buttons are finally pushed, they may choose to vote yes, albeit “with tears”.
The government’s proposals would then pass with a small margin. This outcome would have key tactical advantages for Pan Democrats.
First, the political platform of five million voters would be a powerful, fertile ground for Pan Democrats to cultivate. In contrast, voting the government’s proposals down would be a leap in the dark. If trust with Beijing is further broken, the chance of a better deal later would at best be highly elusive. Hong Kong would most certainly be stuck with the same “small circle” of 1,200 authorized voters.
Second, the thin margin of support in the Legislative Council would send a clear signal to Beijing that the current proposals are by no means good enough. This should pave the way for pressing liberalisation in subsequent years in accordance with the principle of “gradual and orderly progress” under Article 45 of the Basic Law.
Third, Beijing officials were reported to have said that the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s “8.31” framework is meant to last forever. This assertion was, however, in the context of disallowing nomination of candidates with “separatist” leanings. While suggestions for improving the government’s proposals, such as “none-of-the-above” votes, were flatly dismissed, gradual improvements are enshrined under the Basic Law. If greater mutual trust with Beijing is built up over time, one mustn’t assume that things are forever cast in stone. Nothing ever is.
Fourth, One Man, One Vote to elect the Chief Executive in 2017 is what most Hong Kong people want. If the Pan Democrats make this happen, their candidates may win more votes and seats in the 2016 Legislative Council elections. This will make it possible to get a moderate and popular candidate with democratic background through the nominating committee. Failing this, there would be enough public pressure on nominated candidates to include electoral liberalization into his or her election manifesto. All this will sustain the democratic movement.
Fifth, by realizing Beijing’s pledge for 2017, the pre-condition will have been fulfilled for pressing ahead with negotiations on introducing universal suffrage to the Legislative Council election in 2020, as Beijing has promised.
Sixth, similarly, the outcome would signal the possibility of better mutual rapport with Beijing. As a test of trustworthiness, Beijing may, over time, increase the number of suitable individuals with democratic credentials as ministers in Hong Kong’s future governing team. Although when appointed, they will have to sever formal party affiliations, this would pave the way for Pan Democrats to play a more prominent role in Hong Kong’s governance. After all, to make Hong Kong’s executive –led government more effective and sustainable in a multi-party political ecology, Beijing must realize that Pan Democrats must in due course be co-opted into Hong Kong’s governing team in one form or another.
Last but certainly not least, with universal suffrage to elect a new Chief Executive in 2017, Hong Kong would become less divisive and more energized to build a brighter future under the blessing of One Country Two Systems.
A new chapter in Hong Kong’s history is shortly to be unveiled. Pan Democrats hold the trump cards in deciding how the page is turned, for better or for worse. They should display insight in seizing the moment.
An edited version with a less provocative tagline appeared as an Op-ed in the South China Morning Post of 16 June.
Download South China Morning Post
(A Postscript - Behind the Smoke and Mirrors ) -
The realities are staring the opposing Pan Democrats in the face -
(a) Voting down the universal suffrage on offer is because it is seen to fail to meet the so-called "genuine" test. But it is what is promised and can be achieved under the Basic Law with safeguards against "self-determination" or separatism. While not ideal, there is no comparison with the existing "small circle" electorate of only 1,200 members.
(b) If the proposals are voted down, Beijing is unlikely to improve the package next time around as it won't want to be seen to succumb to coercion. There is also the fear of giving an inch now and eventually going down the slope of losing an ell. On the contrary, rejection this time may well harden Beijing's stand further as its red lines of sovereignty and security cannot be crossed.
(c) If the proposals are allowed to pass, there is every chance that Beijing may see fit to improve the package next time, in the light of experience, in accordance with "gradual and orderly progress" allowed under Article 45 of the Basic Law.
(d) In case LegCo passes the proposals, many Hong Kong people are likely to become jubilant. The threatened massive protest or social disorder may not stand a better chance of sustaining itself more than the failed Occupy Movement.
Indeed, the Pan Democrats' rejection of the chance to transform a voting franchise from 1,200 to 5 million in 2017 is so counter-intuitive that one wonders if they wanted the government's package to pass in their heart of hearts. Their hope may be that they would be able to maintain their principles to the very end (by vetoing it) but see a bare (but sufficient) number breaking ranks at the very last moment. That way, they would be able to claim both sides of the democratic argument. In other words, they would be able eat their cake and have it at the same time.
Comments