2024 RT Amination Banner.gif

China Daily

HongKong> Opinion> Content
Monday, March 22, 2021, 10:41
Criticism of electoral reform falls into an oversimplistic black-white binary
By Junius Ho and Kacee Ting Wong
Monday, March 22, 2021, 10:41 By Junius Ho and Kacee Ting Wong

The outbreak of violent protests and riots in Hong Kong in the summer of 2019 is the starting point for us to understand the seismic shift in the city’s political landscape, which exposed the underlying political fault lines in the territory. Before the outbreak of massive riots, few appeared to have realized, much less recognized, that there were disruptive and destabilizing threats posed by the anti-China troublemakers in Hong Kong. Without an early-warning system, Hong Kong suffered the full brunt of devastation from June to December 2019. To add fuel to the fire of disruption, the “mutual destruction faction” in the opposition camp made concerted efforts to further destabilize Hong Kong by winning over half of the seats in the Legislative Council election originally scheduled for September 2020. Because of these seismic shifts, the “Pearl of the Orient” has been clouded by political instability. In the face of the threats posed by those hostile forces, the central authorities had no alternative but to promulgate the National Security Law for Hong Kong in mid-2020. For the sake of long-term stability under the principle of “one country, two systems”, the central authorities found it necessary to launch electoral reform to stop the political mess and tackle the deep-seated social problems in Hong Kong for good.

It comes as no surprise that the “mutual destruction faction” in the opposition camp, and their apologists — the British and US governments as well as the EU — accused Beijing of “shrinking the space for democratic debate” in Hong Kong. Pro-reform advocates should be given an opportunity to clarify any misunderstanding of the proposed electoral reform. Two questions arise for consideration; namely, whether the central authorities intend to use the shake-up of Hong Kong’s electoral system to turn the Legislative Council into a mere talking shop dominated by patriots; and, if the answer is in the negative, whether we appreciate that there is a pressing need to introduce a candidacy qualification vetting mechanism.

First of all, the perceived necessity of an overhaul of Hong Kong’s electoral system should be seen from the perspective of China’s national security. It is totally wrong to judge this issue through the prism of a Western value system. Against the backdrop of new complexities in international relations and giving consideration to the developmental interests of China, Beijing can no longer tolerate the subversive activities of anti-China elements in Hong Kong. As an official from the central government pointed out, the “key issue is about a battle against those trying to grab power and commit subversion and infiltration”. Yang Yirui, the Acting Commissioner of the Foreign Ministry in Hong Kong, said the electoral reform will help improve the relationship between the executive and legislative branches in Hong Kong.

The critics took issue with the likelihood of a lower ratio of geographical seats in the new Legislative Council, citing “shrinking democratic elements” in the electoral system. But they must not overlook the other side of the coin: LegCo had been polarized, or even paralyzed in many instances, by endless filibustering, vetocracy, and the proliferation of destabilizing anti-government propaganda over the period from the late 2000s to late 2020, with its normal operations being frequently interrupted. Of particular concern was the failure of LegCo to effectively deal with livelihood problems in the past two decades. As Zhang Xiaoming, deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, pointed out, the electoral reform will not shut out all opposition figures from the governance establishment. Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah gave the assurance that opposition members can still run for public office and make rational, fact-based criticism. It is also noteworthy that there will not be any amendments to Article 45 and 68 of the Basic Law. The ultimate aim of the election of all members of LegCo by universal suffrage will also remain unchanged. Beijing has no intention of transforming LegCo into a “rubber stamp”.

Universal suffrage no doubt has its merits. But it can easily be manipulated by corrupt politicians and interest groups. One of the defects of universal suffrage is the lack of a sufficient post-election supervisory mechanism to ensure that MPs or congressmen are fully accountable to the voters. Vetocracy is an intractable problem in many Western democracies, including the US, because many legislators often put partisan interests above voters’ interests. Legislators are also criticized for being too cozy with “Big Money” because they rely on big businesses to fund their expensive election campaigns. In the US, for example, government spending comprises 38 percent of GDP, and thus big businesses are eager to influence policies through lobbying and political funding. The close ties between some big businesses and legislators have created a disincentive for the latter to give adequate attention to the livelihood issues of their constituencies. Feeling betrayed by their representatives, many voters are dissatisfied with the political leadership of all parties, and there is a recurring skepticism about doctrines of social progress (Simon Reid-Henry, Empire of Democracy (UK: John Murray, 2020), p.740-741).

Like William Lecky and John Stuart Mill, some contemporary thinkers also have reservations about universal suffrage. These modern thinkers are critical of the sophisticated skills used by the unscrupulous politicians to manipulate their followers and gain popular support. Their electoral tools include fake information, empty promises, character assassination of their opponents and the offer of quick fixes to solve deep-seated socioeconomic problems. Jason Brennan proposes setting up a voter qualification examination to tackle the problem of voter manipulability (Jason Brennan, Against Democracy (Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2017), p. 212).

The above-mentioned vote-manipulative techniques have not escaped the attention of the central government in Beijing. Like other representative election systems, Hong Kong’s representative system lacks a sufficient post-election mechanism to scrutinize the performance of its legislative councilors. Voters can only wait for the next election to seek remedies. But the unscrupulous politicians can use more sophisticated techniques to mislead and manipulate their followers to vote for them again in the next election.

To conclude, we should avoid adopting a dogmatic attitude toward the principle of universal suffrage. Nor should we paint the restrictive measures of the electoral reform package in an oversimplistic binary of black and white. To improve the electoral system, we should be open-minded and view universal suffrage from a broader perspective to see the need for incorporating pre-election screening or a post-election accountability mechanism into the one-man-one-vote system. The introduction of a pre-election screening mechanism can provide a golden opportunity to rebuild the trust between the central government and Hong Kong and help the latter choose competent patriots to restore the city to its past glory.

Junius Ho is a Legislative Council member and a solicitor.

Kacee Ting Wong is a barrister and a part-time researcher of Shenzhen University Hong Kong and the Macao Basic Law Research Center.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.


Share this story

CHINA DAILY
HONG KONG NEWS
OPEN
Please click in the upper right corner to open it in your browser !