Henry Ford is supposed to have said that his customers could choose any colour of car they wanted “so long as it’s black”. On Sunday night, the Chinese government ended months of speculation about elections for Hong Kong’s chief executive, the city’s equivalent of mayor, by declaring that Hongkongers could vote for anyone they liked – so long as they are red.
In more prosaic language, what the National People’s Congress actually said was that candidates for the 2017 election must be backed by at least 50 per cent of a 1,200-member nominating committee. That committee, which is elected by some 250,000 individual and corporate voters, is largely pro-Beijing in make-up. The ruling thus guarantees that candidates deemed antagonistic to Beijing or the Chinese Communist party will fall at the first hurdle. Only those that “love China” need apply. Candidates who make it through the nominating committee will then go on to an election determined by universal suffrage, or one person, one vote.
Theoretically, at least, Beijing could have given more ground. It might, for example, have said that candidates with 30 per cent approval from the nominating committee could stand. It could also have ruled that the composition of the nominating committee itself be widened so as better to reflect the make-up of Hong Kong’s people. It chose neither.
Beijing could have taken a bigger gamble. After all, it has the final say in approving the Hong Kong chief executive. In the last instance it could have vetoed Hongkongers’ choice – although that could, of course, have sparked a political crisis. However, that’s a moot point. In practice, as many have pointed out, Hong Kong’s keenly pragmatic electorate is very unlikely to jeopardise the city’s prosperity by electing anyone openly hostile to Beijing.
Beijing has, nonetheless, been rattled by radical talk from Hong Kong. Sunday’s ruling presents those pushing for more genuine democracy with two dilemmas. The first is whether legislators belonging to the so-called Pan-Democrats should vote down Beijing’s proposals. If they all vote No, that would be enough to scupper the electoral reform plan, which needs a two-thirds majority to pass through Hong Kong’s mini-parliament. In that case, there would be no universal suffrage and the 2017 election would be conducted under present rules. Beijing has offered democrats a Hobson’s choice between an unacceptable option – or nothing.
The second dilemma confronts members of Occupy Central, a loose coalition of pro-democracy activists who have threatened a campaign of civil disobedience if rules for universal suffrage fail to meet what they deem to be international standards. Their threats to bring the business district to a standstill have been brusquely rejected as illegal by Beijing. They have also antagonised more moderate Hongkongers who worry that unrest – even violence – on the streets of Hong Kong could undermine the city’s position as an international financial centre.
Occupy Central did not take to the streets in large numbers on Monday. Benny Tai, one of its organisers, says it will gradually build up the level of protests in coming weeks. Still, some pro-democracy activists fear that momentum may have already been lost.
It is now crystal-clear – if it wasn’t before – that Beijing is only prepared to indulge Hong Kong so much. It is in Beijing’s interest to maintain the framework of “one country, two systems” agreed with the British at handover in 1997. To destroy that would be to risk severe international criticism as well as Hong Kong’s status as financial centre – not to mention a convenient place to park small fortunes made on the mainland. The “two systems” bit of the equation is supposed to give Hong Kong a “high degree of autonomy”. But in case anyone was in doubt, “two systems” is always trumped by “one country”.
http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2014/09/the-double-dilemma-dealt-to-hong-kongs-democrats/?
