Hong Kong has not reached a 'now or never' moment in its democratic
development, as supporters of Occupy Central seem to believe, and calm
negotiation is best.
Amid the political reform controversy, Beijing is often portrayed as
reneging on its promise of universal suffrage, trampling on Hong Kong's high
degree of autonomy, turning a deaf ear to people's demands for democracy, and
quietly eroding Hong Kong's freedom of expression. So, the argument goes, it's
now or never between purgatory and paradise, and let's "Occupy
Central" if we must, to force Beijing's hand.
As Hong Kong awaits the National People's Congress Standing Committee
pronouncements later this month, a little cool-headedness will not be remiss.
As Chief
Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has pointed out, universal suffrage was
not spelt out in the Joint Declaration. It was Beijing's idea in the first
place to introduce it in the Basic Law, a national law of the People's Republic
of China. Beijing has no reason to risk its international credibility by eating
its words. Indeed, its recent statements make this clear.
Under "one
country, two systems", Beijing has never allowed, let alone promised, that
Hong Kong people can have a completely free hand in choosing who they want. In
accordance with Article 45 of the Basic Law, the selection of the chief
executive must be "by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly
representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic
procedures". No alternative is contemplated, nor is there any provision to
allow the nominating committee to delegate or dilute its collective power of
nomination.
Legally, this
rules out direct nomination by other means, including public nomination.
Article 45 of
the Basic Law aims to minimise the chance of someone being elected in the rough
and tumble of universal suffrage who may intend to subvert the Communist Party
in Beijing. This doesn't mean that the chief executive must be a Communist
Party member, nor that he or she may not stand up to Beijing in defending Hong
Kong's interests. If it were so, the "two systems" would wither in
the eyes of the world. But it does mean that no chief executive can be allowed
to lead Hong Kong into becoming a base for subverting the mainland regime. This
is the "one country" side of the bargain.
So, does Article
45 measure up to the so-called "international standards of
democracy"? Perhaps not. But, in terms of democratic legitimacy, this is
infinitely better than any system Hong Kong has had.
From Beijing's
perspective, then, why should it worry about the nomination procedures, since
it wields the substantive power of final appointment? The answer is that it
understands this is a nuclear option. If Beijing should refuse to appoint
someone duly elected, there would be an international outcry of electoral
charade. The whole credibility of "one country, two systems" would be
in tatters. The people of Hong Kong would become disgruntled, and political
unrest would ensue.
The subtext in
Beijing's pronouncements so far is that it does want to make sure no one is
allowed to run for election who is a potential subversive. Hence its
requirement of "patriotism". After all, this is a natural requirement
expected of a Hong Kong SAR chief executive accountable to the central government.
This does not
necessarily mean that Hong Kong people would not have a genuine free choice,
because the nominating committee can be made as broadly representative as
possible, provided that the voting balance between the different sectors
underpinning Hong Kong's economic and social viability - the business,
professional, grass-roots, and political sectors - is carefully maintained.
Indeed, Beijing
has suggested that pan-democrats are not automatically ruled out.
We should also
address some of the more outrageous claims and counter-claims.
Despite worries
raised by the recent spate of street protests, Hong Kong is not becoming a
police state. The city is today known as much for its numerous protests as its
tolerance for them. Hong Kong has retained, for 20 years in a row, the top rank
as the world's freest economy, according to the Heritage Foundation. This would
not have been possible if Hong Kong's civil society had failed to make the
grade. Indeed, Beijing should be proud to nurture this city with its world-class
infrastructure and independent judiciary.
What of
Beijing's worry about foreign instigation? It's not just paranoia. The Hong
Kong media has been awash with revelations of donations of millions of dollars
to "democratic" politicians, activists and civic leaders, all from
one single source, who is reported to have ties with US politicians like Paul
Wolfowitz.
The donations
included some HK$20 million to Joseph Zen Ze-kiun when he was head of the Hong
Kong Catholic diocese, who had been active in rallying his fold behind
anti-Beijing protests.
What might come
easily to Beijing's mind is Pope John Paul II's famous role in inspiring the
Polish people's movement that triggered a chain reaction that led to the Soviet
bloc's collapse. Small wonder, then, that Beijing remains suspicious of
possible plots to foment a Hong Kong revolution agitating for the Communist
Party's downfall.
Clearly,
"two systems" cannot exist independently of "one country".
A high degree of autonomy, yes, but not to the extent of threatening the
stability of the "one country". The recent publication by Beijing of
a white paper on Hong Kong means to tell the world where Beijing's red lines
are.
Moreover, the
Anti-Occupy Central movement has now gathered some 1.5 million signatures.
Whatever statistical doubts remain, this shows that despite considerable
support for "universal standards of democracy", a vast proportion of
the people do not subscribe to tilting at windmills to the bitter end, to go
for all or nothing.
Fissures between
Hong Kong and Beijing are worsening. Hong Kong deserves more democracy by open,
fair and accountable universal suffrage in 2017. But a mutually acceptable
package should be calmly negotiated in accordance with the Basic Law. It could
risk losing all by digging in its heels and using coercion, however
"peaceful", to force Beijing's hand to do the impossible.
Andrew K. P. Leung is an international
and independent China specialist based in Hong Kong
No comments:
Post a Comment