No two countries or regions are alike, and they are invariably different in their approach to democracy.  For example, the re-election of Tsai Ing-wen as Taiwan’s leader could not be compared to the election of President Donald Trump in the US. Tsai was elected by the simple first-past-the-post method, while Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton but won on the Electoral College vote.

The procedures for Hong Kong are a mixture of both. Currently, candidates for chief executive must be nominated by a nominating committee and voted upon by the electoral committee (the same members as the nominating committee). However, the Basic Law stipulated that our chief executive should be voted in by universal suffrage (the Taiwan system). An attempt was made in June 2015 to introduce direct elections in accordance with a resolution of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee in 2007: “that the election of the fifth chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the year 2017 may be implemented by universal suffrage; that after the chief executive is selected by universal suffrage, the election of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage”. However, the proposal was defeated by the Legislative Council.

The will of the people will change from one to another, and to achieve a successful balance, compromise must be made; that is politics and is also known as horse-trading or political give-and-take

Hong Kong and Taiwan are similar in China’s geopolitical boundaries; Taiwan is a province of China, as is Hong Kong a special administration region of China. Although Taiwan pretends to be independent of the Chinese mainland, realistically, it is not. It has very little status in terms of international diplomatic relations as it is recognized by only 15 countries.

Taiwan became what it is today after the Chinese Civil War, when the mainland was won by the communists under Mao Zedong. In 1949, the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party) and about 2 million troops and refugees retreated to Taiwan. After years of one-party dictatorship, the first elections for county and city councils by ballot were held in Taiwan in 1951. However, it remained under martial law for 38 years to suppress political dissidents. The first direct election in Taiwan was held on March 23, 1996. In the previous eight elections, the leader of Taiwan had been chosen in a ballot of the deputies of the “national assembly”, an electoral college.

So like Hong Kong, Taiwan has gone through years of political turmoil before reaching the stage of universal suffrage. China recognizes the importance of Taiwan and allows it to have an independent government elected by universal suffrage.

Beijing plans the same for Hong Kong. The Basic Law, drawn up by the central authorities and Hong Kong people, provides for the chief executive and the entire legislature to be elected by universal suffrage ultimately. This can be done by the will of the people and meeting the criteria of candidates as set out in the Basic Law.

But the will of the people will change from one to another, and to achieve a successful balance, compromise must be made; that is politics and is also known as horse-trading or political give-and-take. The revised electoral proposals, whenever they are made, will not please everyone. That is natural given the political differences between the “pan-democrats” and the pro-establishment groups. But it is essential that, when the time comes, they sit down in an adult and professional manner and agree on the way forward through compromises of their respective original political stance. Being dogmatic by sticking to demands unwaveringly will get no one anywhere. Demands are not flexible and have no place on the negotiating table. They are just starting points to a final solution that benefits all stakeholders.

Demands are the favorite tools used by student protesters and have gotten them nowhere. Not surprisingly, they lost out in the 2014 “Umbrella Movement” when the administration was willing to sit down and negotiate an end to the protests, but the student representatives were adamant that their demands be met. There was no give or take. It was a lost opportunity. And they will lose out again in the current crisis because their demands cannot be legally met. Any rational person would know that you cannot grant amnesty to those who have committed assault, arson and wanton vandalism. To acquiesce to such an outright unlawful demand would be tantamount to kissing our vaunted rule of law goodbye! These criminals have taken part in willful and unlawful activities, causing serious injuries and damage to both public and private properties. If the law is to have any deterrent effect against crimes, how can they not serve time for their criminal acts? And their “demand” to withdraw the term “riot” is a slap in the face to both the judiciary and law enforcement. When is a riot not a riot is for the courts to decide. By sticking to demands, the protesters have put themselves against the wall and created an impossible deadlock before even negotiations can begin.

So when the administration brings forward the next set of proposals for universal suffrage in the future, all interested parties should have their own counterproposals so a compromise can be reached. Demands during this process should be instantly dismissed. The protesters have to understand that discussions on Hong Kong’s future cannot revolve around their immutable “demands”. Are they going to prioritize their political vanity or Hong Kong’s future?

The author is a former chief information officer of the Hong Kong government, a PR and media consultant, and a veteran journalist.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.