Response to the 2017 Chief Executive Election proposal

Following much talk about democratic progress for the 2017 Chief Executive elections and an official report from the HK government regarding results from public consultation, the Chinese government has finally responded, kicking the reform to its next stage. Technically, with the indication from China, the HK government now will propose a model for the Legislative Council to vote upon – a model that should, in theory, advance democracy in Hong Kong and allow universal suffrage to become reality.

            The emphasis, however, seems to have shifted from “universal suffrage” to the watered-down (and definitely not the same in definition) “one man one vote”. Instead of ensuring that everyone has a fair, equal and genuine chance in electing a Chief Executive in 2017, the process has put the spotlight on allowing all registered voters to have “their say”. Everyone can vote, not just some random group of business elites and politicians. This is, of course, a step forward.

            However, is this the same thing as true “democratic development”? Is this “progress” and “universal suffrage”? Although the exact model has yet to emerge from the government, the Chinese government’s response has four major elements:

(i)            The nomination committee who will be nominating (and hence selecting) the candidates who will ultimately be up for the popular vote will be constituted of 1200 people, and the “4 categories” will remain

(ii)          Each candidate must get over half of the votes in the nomination committee before they are allowed to stand (compared to the current percentage of 12.5%)

(iii)         There must only be at most two to three candidates standing for election

(iv)         The “ultimate decision” will be put to the people via a popular vote, whereby 5 million registered voters in Hong Kong will be able to vote for one candidate

Another caveat is that if the legislative council votes to reject the government’s proposal for the election mechanism for 2017, there will be no change to the current system.

            It is not the position of this piece to advocate for specific causes, although certain political movements like Occupy Central have already reacted against the restrictions and denounced it as a farce. But it is crucial to dwell on the meaning behind the conditions set and realize that they do, in some way or another, hinder true democratic process. If one takes “democracy” to translate to representation in the government and the people’s voices being heard, stepping in pre-emptively in the nomination stage inhibits any sort of “true representation”. If eligible candidates who legitimately speak for a sizeable sector of the population are not allowed to run and be tested by the popular vote simply because the nomination committee (which is not truly representative of the HK population) will not allow them to stand for election, how can true democracy flourish?

            As a throwback to our Reflections conference last month, many speakers made the critical distinction between “one man one vote” and “universal suffrage”. It is an understandable stance to take that perhaps “one man one vote” is a reasonable step in limited circumstances, and that maybe compromising earlier will earn us “bargaining power” for further democratic development. However, if we want true democracy as soon as possible then it is important to not overlook the fallacies in the current proposal and accept the suggested model as “a step forward”. The loopholes are significant. A nomination committee that arguably “rigs” an election should not be considered part of a genuine democratic process.

            More significantly, former governor Chris Patten* has also spoken up in an article in the Financial Times about how the UK has a “moral obligation” to Hong Kong – and went as far as to say that “such vetting is more or less what happens in Iran”. Granted, the autocratic rule in Iran may be a slight stretch, but doubtlessly the “pre-selection procedure” that takes place through the requirement of getting majority support from the nomination committee may prevent certain candidates (e.g. someone overly vocal about democracy or critical of Beijing) from standing for election. Although the UK Foreign Office’s official statement on the decision has not gone as far, the fact that Hong Kong’s struggle for democracy has attracted attention from the UK is indicative of the problems with the proposed “democratic reform”.

            It is of course up to the individual citizen to think about where he stands in this new page of political advancement. It is also another matter altogether as to what steps (in terms of civic participation) one can take in the struggle for more progress, should that be on your mind – believing in and advocating for democracy is not necessarily the same as actively occupying Central, for example. The truth is, however, that the Chinese government’s response to the cry for universal suffrage in 2017 has been disappointing if calibrated to the conventional and international understanding of what “democracy” means. Democracy has always meant the voice of the people, and to a large extent, based on historical precedent, it seems unlikely that a top-down announcement on how democracy “should work” will swallowed hook, line and sinker by an informed, educated and hopeful citizenry like our own.

* We are honored to have Lord Patten as an honorary member of CUHKCAS.