It has been a month since the local legislative election took place in Hong Kong. Months before the election, Beijing’s National People’s Congress passed a provision named “Improve Electoral Systems in Hong Kong” as a way to overhaul the local electoral rules in the semi-autonomous city. Under the revamped system, room for direct elections was quashed and replaced with indirect elections whose electorates were inundated with Beijing loyalists. To be specific, the composition of the legislative council now includes more than three-quarters of indirectly elected seats, leaving only less than one-quarter of the seats being directly elected. In the past, direct elections at least accounted for 50 percent of the seats. Among others, the threshold for pro-democracy figures to participate in the city’s legislative and executive election was elevated to an inconceivable level in that nominees must receive nominations from all five sectors of the election committee heavily loaded with pro-establishment figures to contest in the election. Dissidents were barred from entering the contest and only those that successfully passed a vetting process could join the pool of candidates known as “patriots”. With almost all democratic activities and campaigns stifled, the upshot of the election was no surprise to anyone. Pro-Beijing candidates won all but one seat in the 90-member legislative council. In the view of Beijing, this election was an overwhelming success in precluding the “unpatriotic” individuals from entering the administrative system. But for the opponents, this election was a travesty of democracy. Not only was it left with sheer political posturing, but it also witnessed the backtrack of Hong Kong’s democracy. However, should China be the only one to shoulder all the culpability in the failing story of Hong Kong’s democratic development? Could the culprit be Britain also?
One principal factor for Hong Kong’s democracy remaining so tenuous is that it had never reached a stage of being a fully-fledged Western democracy, with a vibrant and robust civic community, rights to hold referendums, and universal suffrage practiced in all elections. As the last Governor of Hong Kong Chris Patten remarked, “if Hong Kong had had another 10 years experience of democracy, it would have been much more difficult for the Chinese authorities to have rolled it back.” The root cause of the city’s unsound democracy stems from the dearth of civic democracy and activities during the British colonial rule, as the British rejoiced the ruling concept of “business as usual” in Hong Kong; therefore, discourses surrounding politics and civil engagement remained moderate under British control. In the late years of colonial rule, the British government negotiated with the Chinese authorities to enshrine universal suffrage in Article 45 of Hong Kong Basic Law as a way to ensure that democracy develops in the Western track after straddling 1997. Exhilarating as this article might sound for the democrats, it came with a preamble that the nomination should come from a “broadly representative nominating committee,” as opposed to civic nomination. Great Britain certainly failed to notice that this preamble in the passage would become the loophole that China can exploit in the future to barricade genuine universal suffrage that invites all eligible contestants. In fact, the Basic Law drafting process took place during the 80s when the UK was still responsible for Hong Kong. Little efforts, such as lobbying or pressurizing China, to overturn this passage of the draft were done by the British back then, unfortunately.
While many people still commend Great Britain for its relentless efforts in laying out the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a legally binding treaty underpinning the rule of law, fundamental human rights, and the political and legal framework of Hong Kong post reversion, few people recognize that the conduction and context of the Joint Declaration were rather problematic. For starters, the negotiations and signing of the Joint Declaration transpired without the participation and consultation of Hong Kong citizens. All of the processes were exclusive to only the UK and China, leaving the Hong Kongers to kick off their future in an untenable and subservient position. Moreover, as opposed to many’s belief, the Joint Declaration materially contributed to the scant progress of democracy in Hong Kong, as the clauses confined Hong Kong’s political development to the year 1984 and prevented any major changes thereafter. Pursuant to Annex II of the Joint Declaration, “the two Governments have agreed to set up a Joint Liaison Group to conduct consultations on such subjects as may be agreed by the two sides.” This clause provided a pretext with a statutory basis for China to obstruct the UK from independently exercising major decisions, such as political reformation, in Hong Kong during the transitional period, for consultation with Beijing became indispensable. An illustration could be seen in 1993. When Governor Chris Patten propelled electoral reforms expanding the voting franchise in the city’s legislative council election, Beijing lambasted the UK that such assertive decisions had not received Chinese concurrence. This transient democracy survived until the eve of July 1, 1997, when China then dismantled the legislative council and installed the provisional legislative council, as a response to Britain’s breach of the Joint Declaration.
By and large, Britain still left a myriad of legacies that pillared Hong Kong’s success. Most notably, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, values of human dignity, and freedom. Nonetheless, when the discussion comes to delving into the causes of the ramshackle democracy of Hong Kong, Britain should not shy away from its historical accountability.
Disclaimer: This article does not intend to become a mouthpiece of Beijing and accomplice in helping Chief Executive Carrie Lam shirk responsibility for decimating the democratic environment in Hong Kong. Rather, the article aims to provide an insight into how the UK and the well-acclaimed Joint Declaration in fact hampered the future progression of Hong Kong’s democracy. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
The author is a student at Georgetown University. As an International Economics major, he enjoys investigating the nexus between political dynamics and the economy.
