The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Patriots ruling Hong Kong|Forty years of democracy, the road to democracy has become more and more biased, where will Hong Kong democracy go in the future?

2022-05-02T00:42:18.614Z


After the anti-amendment turmoil in 2019, the political situation in Hong Kong was turned upside down. The central government first formulated the "Hong Kong National Security Law", and then revised the Hong Kong electoral system, including expanding the size and functions of the Election Commission, increasing and


After the anti-amendment turmoil in 2019, the political situation in Hong Kong was turned upside down.

The central government first formulated the "Hong Kong National Security Law", and then revised the Hong Kong electoral system, including expanding the size and functions of the Election Commission, increasing and raising the number of seats in the Legislative Council and the threshold for participating in elections, and greatly improving the entry gate and election conditions for the chief executive election. And so on, it not only builds a legal basis for safeguarding national security, but also raises the risk factor for those who manage Hong Kong to the highest level.

The sixth chief executive election will be held on Sunday (May 8), and only the former Chief Secretary for Administration, Li Jiachao, will enter the gate to run for the election.

This "one-person model" is inevitably criticized for lack of competition and violation of democratic principles, and there are even concerns that Hong Kong's future path to democracy has been interrupted.

However, the standard against which this criticism is compared is the idealized democratic vision of Europe and the United States, without reflecting on its inherent problems and limitations.

Looking back on the road to democracy over the past 40 years, why has Hong Kong gone further and further?

What kind of "democracy" do we apply?


Looking back on this 40-year democratic road, the pan-democrats have gone from active dialogue with the central government to being separated from each other.

After all, why is the road to democracy in Hong Kong going more and more deviated?

And what kind of democracy is suitable for Hong Kong?

(file picture)

European and American Democracy

The "dual universal suffrage" pursued by Hong Kong people with one person, one vote and a low electoral threshold can be said to reduce the democratic system in Europe and the United States to an electoral arrangement in which multiple parties gain political power through competition for votes, and regard the votes in the hands of citizens as the realization of political power. The only way to equality.

At first glance, the "one person, one vote" system seems to be the best solution to protect the lives of citizens, because once a politician fails, citizens can use their votes to overthrow them and select a more preferred candidate for power.

However, European and American democratic forms are being severely impacted by populism and political fragmentation, and the resulting social contradictions are exacerbated by capitalism, the prevalence of globalization, and the popularity of social media.

Zheng Yongnian, Dean of the Advanced Study of Global and Contemporary China at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Shenzhen), who was once regarded as a think tank in Beijing, wrote an article in 2020 with the title "What's Wrong with Western Democracy?" , which is an inevitable product of Western democracy.

He believes that the democratic system of "one person, one vote" actually hides a highly moral assumption that all people are equal in terms of intelligence and reason, and the rational decisions they make are in the private interests of everyone, as well as in their own interests. the public interest of the society in which they live, but this is not in line with the reality.

Especially when "capital" becomes the invasion of capital to individuals and personal power in the process of globalization and technological progress, it further urges people to rely on political power to fight against capital to survive.

However, not everyone can make "rational" decisions to balance their public interest.

At the same time, electoral politics, which focuses on competition, does not properly filter populism.

For the sake of political gain, some politicians instead advocate populism to win elections.

The "white supremacy" behind the rise of former US President Trump is precisely because many social groups simply blame "others" for social and economic development issues. As a result, the original economic and livelihood issues have all become "politicized" , not only failed to be properly resolved, but led to further division of society.

The intrusion of capital on individuals and personal power has made people more dependent on political power.

The picture shows people demonstrating in New York's Financial District in 2009.

(Getty Images)

Political fragmentation leads to government failure

On the other hand, the problem of political fragmentation faced by party politics also calls into question the effectiveness of the democratic system in Europe and the United States. Because political power is dispersed into the hands of different people, it is difficult for a "democratic government" to operate effectively.

The multi-party system in Europe and the two-party system in the United States are also suffering from it, and it is difficult to unify the differences of opinion between different parties, and it is even more difficult to pass bills in parliament.

European and American democracies are not necessarily related to "good governance and good governance".

Hong Kong, which is fascinated by the European and American democratic models, has formed a different set of "executive-led" political system and party politics based on special colonial reasons and the "one country, two systems" framework. They have an accurate understanding of "one country, two systems" and "executive-led", and they have not accurately understood that Hong Kong's democratic development cannot be separated from the support of the central government, the promotion of the SAR government, and the coordination of the pan-democrats. The increasingly radical approach forced the central government to implement "dual universal suffrage" in Hong Kong, believing that "one person, one vote" democratic election is a panacea for improving governance effectiveness - as a result, "executive leadership" has fallen by the wayside, "party politics" is incomplete, and "populism" "With the popularity of this trend, the mutual trust between the pan-democrats and the central government has long since been exhausted.

Looking back on this road to democracy, in fact, the differences between the two sides had been foreshadowed long before the return.

The competitive electoral politics in Europe and the United States do not properly filter populism.

(Getty Images)

Rapid democratization has paved the way for the conflict between Yangon and Hong Kong

During most of the time Hong Kong was under British rule, there was no "democracy" in society.

It was not until the early 1980s, just before the handover of Hong Kong, that the British Hong Kong government quickly carried out "constitutional reforms". In more than ten years, the seats of the Legislative Council were changed from three modes: direct appointment, indirect election by the electoral college, and election by functional constituencies. Changed to direct appointments, functional constituency elections, direct district elections—which are generally seen as a major democratic advance.

However, the pan-democrats who originally supported the development of democracy and actively participated in the consultation and drafting of the Basic Law have become suspicious of the Communist Party because of the "June 4 Incident" in 1989. The parliament, on the other hand, is also grappling with Beijing.

Zhang Bingliang, chair professor of public administration studies at the Education University of Hong Kong, told the "Hong Kong 01" reporter that before the handover, "anti-Communist" and "don't give up hope for the handover" were the mainstream in society, and these concerns became more prominent after the "June 4th Incident". , but because the dust of the handover of Hong Kong by the United Kingdom has been settled, it has no choice but to turn from "anti-communism" to "democratic rejection of the communist", believing that as long as the pace of democracy is accelerated, it will be able to resist the CCP's governance.

The democratic program proposed by the Democratic Party in the future will also use democracy to strive for the autonomy of Hong Kong under "One Country, Two Systems", and to "check and balance" the country's actual sovereignty over Hong Kong after the handover.

Now it seems that this ideology of binary opposition undoubtedly paved the way for the future contradiction between the central and Hong Kong and the mainland, and it has continued in the main thread of Hong Kong's democratic development, including the central government's three efforts to promote Hong Kong's democratic development. Nodes "Decision on 4.26", "Decision on 12.29", "Decision on 8.31", and the corresponding three political reform attempts.

Behind this, in addition to the many differences between the central government and the pan-democrats on the issue of political reform, there are also constant splits within the pro-democracy faction, and even separation from the central government and the Hong Kong government. Ultimately, Hong Kong's democratic path has become more and more deviated.

Zhang Bingliang said that before the handover, "anti-Communist" and "don't give up hope for the handover" were the mainstream in society. These concerns became more prominent after the "June 4th Incident". Anti-Communist" turned to "democracy and rejection of the Communist Party".

(file picture)

Promoting the development of democracy is inseparable from the support of the central government

In fact, the central government's promotion of democratic development in Hong Kong has always been based on the basic principles of "one country, two systems" and social stability, and has achieved the goal of "dual universal suffrage" by "coordinating timetables" and "step by step". of contradicting each other.

The problem is that, to promote the development of democracy in Hong Kong, it is fundamentally inseparable from the support of the central government.

This puts the democrats who hold a lot of seats in the Legislative Council in a dilemma every time they face a political reform plan. If they reject a "step-by-step" political reform plan, the development of democracy will inevitably "stand still"; , if it is passed through a "compromise" with the central government, it will fall into the moral problem of "selling out democracy".

Zhang Bingliang sighed, "The democrats behind every political reform cannot persuade the inside, there are many different moral and tactical differences, and the biggest obstacle to the political reform after the return is whether the democrats have the ability to compromise."

For example, the "2012 Political Reform Plan" was the only successful case among the three political reforms after the handover, precisely because the democrats were willing to "compromise".

At that time, the establishment, which had only 36 votes, was simply not enough to pass the political reform plan. To meet the approval threshold of two-thirds (40) members of the Legislative Council, the Democratic Party with 8 votes became the "critical minority".

However, the "2012 Proposal for the Selection of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council" proposed by the Donald Tsang government at that time was only an improved version of the 2004 political reform. The number of seats in the Legislative Council increased by 10 to a total of 70 seats, namely 5 seats for district direct elections and 5 seats for district council functional constituencies, the latter being elected by popular constituencies.

The democrats are extremely disappointed with the political reform plan that has repeatedly delayed universal suffrage, but if they veto the political reform as in 2004, the development of democracy will inevitably "stand still" again.

The Democratic Party, which is the "key minority", therefore proposed an improvement plan. Later, with the approval of the central government, the SAR government agreed to the plan, which evolved into five "super district council" seats, and the bill was finally passed in the Legislative Council.

The political reform plan proposed by Donald Tsang in 2010 is only an improved version of the political reform in 2004, but the Democratic Party, as the "key minority", is willing to "compromise" so that the development of democracy will no longer "stand still".

(Photo of the Information Services Department)

Pan-democrats acquiesce to "resistance" and the central government's move toward "separation"

The Democratic Party was undoubtedly the key to the success of the political reform that year, but it also fell into domestic and foreign difficulties. Internally, the Democratic Party once again had a serious line dispute; externally, it was repeatedly attacked by radical pan-democrats.

In the following years, street protests were brought into parliament, and behaviors such as "pulling" and littering became the "new normal".

After this "one battle", Zhang Bingliang said that the Democratic Party has no longer the ability to "compromise" and can only be led away by radical forces.

Thereafter, whether in 2013, due to opposition to the National People's Congress Standing Committee's adoption of the "Decision of the National People's Congress Standing Committee on the Issue of Universal Suffrage for the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Method for the Formation of the Legislative Council in 2016" (the "Decision of 8.31"), It is not difficult to see that the mainstream pan-democrats did not adhere to the pragmatic politics of renegotiation, but were led away by the radicals, and in the pro-democracy movement. The dominance of China has been successively taken away by student political leaders such as Huang Zhifeng, and by forces such as "localists" and "self-determinationists", and they have acquiesced in "showdown" political coercion methods such as occupation and "resistance" in an attempt to force Beijing to take over the Concession on issues such as dual universal suffrage.

Zhang Bingliang described this as "a taboo among taboos".

In 2019, when deep-seated contradictions are accumulating over time, the government still ignores social sentiments and pushes to revise the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance without a good policy explanation, pushing the society to the abyss of "tear".

The pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong is officially heading for a full-scale confrontation with the central government.

Under such circumstances, the past "path of democratic development" is obviously no longer suitable.

In the past, the "dual universal suffrage" with low nomination thresholds that pan-democrats have been striving for has resulted in a stricter eligibility review system. The number of directly elected seats in the Legislative Council has also been greatly reduced, and the original super district councils have all been cancelled.

In 2019, the turmoil against the amendment bill broke out, and the Hong Kong democracy movement was officially heading for a comprehensive confrontation with the central government.

Under such circumstances, the past "path of democratic development" is obviously no longer suitable.

(file picture)

Political reform still has conditions to restart after political issues are resolved

But despite this, according to the white paper titled "Democracy Development in Hong Kong under "One Country, Two Systems" released by the State Council Information Office on the day after the Legislative Council election last year, it not only sorted out the path of Hong Kong's democratic development from the British Hong Kong era to the electoral reform, but also clearly pointed out that Hong Kong The prospect of democratic development even indicates that once the political issues are dealt with, the political reform will have conditions to restart.

The question is, at the critical juncture of the second half of "One Country, Two Systems", what kind of democracy is more applicable to Hong Kong?

In the past, Hong Kong society has long been superstitious in the "big market, small government" mentality of "active non-intervention" and allowed capital to monopolize profits, resulting in deep-seated problems.

Many people believe that as long as the dual universal suffrage of "one person, one vote" is implemented, people with lofty ideals can be successfully elected and many economic and people's livelihood problems can be solved. However, under the previous electoral system, even the Hong Kong rulers who were elected to parliament through direct elections. , it may not be able to improve governance efficiency - the two camps of the establishment and the democrats are caught in a confrontation, causing the society to fall into a political tear, and from time to time to intensify contradictions through different issues.

The "Occupy Central" in 2014, the Mong Kok riots in 2016, and the turmoil against the amendment bill in 2019 are all manifestations of the gradual radicalization of society. In the process, they have also fully exposed various "primitive diseases" derived from democracy in Europe and the United States - unable to filter Populism and the inability to achieve good governance and good governance forced the central government to formulate the "Hong Kong National Security Law", revise the Hong Kong electoral system, and implement the principle of "patriots ruling Hong Kong".

On December 22, 2021, the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in Hong Kong held a briefing on the white paper "Democratic Development in Hong Kong under "One Country, Two Systems", reviewing and summarizing the history of democratic development in the Hong Kong SAR and explaining the prospects for democratic development in Hong Kong.

(China News Agency)

Combining Meritocracy and Democracy

Therefore, "Hong Kong's democracy" can no longer be exposed to various "primitive diseases" of European and American democracy, and it is also necessary to avoid falling into the "monster" of Western democracy in which "people are awakened only when they vote, and then they go into a hibernation period". "in.

As pointed out in the white paper "Democratic Development of Hong Kong under "One Country, Two Systems", we must improve the quality of democracy and pursue substantive democracy.

In the actual operation process, Zheng Yongnian once suggested in the series of articles "Hong Kong's Democracy and Hong Kong's Future" that future elections in Hong Kong should combine "meritocracy" and "democratic politics", and suggested that "selection first, election later" It ensures that the central government elects qualified "sages" for citizens to vote, filters out inappropriate "pseudo-patriots" and "politicians who advocate populism", and gives politicians elected by universal suffrage a certain foundation of public opinion.

In addition to the head of the SAR, the legislature should also achieve an organic combination of meritocracy and democratic politics.

Zhang Bingliang said that before the electoral reform, the ideal parliamentary model is that half of the seats are directly elected by the districts, and the other half are nominated by the functional constituencies, following the practice of "super district councils", and then elected by the citizens, so as to balance different sectors. Do not benefit.

Source: hk1

All news articles on 2022-05-02

You may like

News/Politics 2024-03-07T08:05:51.578Z
News/Politics 2024-01-30T03:38:38.978Z

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.