On Dec 7, a new Hong Kong Legislative Council (LegCo) will be elected. All 90 seats are being contested under the new electoral system, introduced in 2021. These comprise: 40 seats elected by the 1,500-member Election Committee (the electoral college that selects the chief executive); 30 seats elected by functional constituencies, representing Hong Kong’s various professions and trades; and 20 seats elected through direct elections.
This hybrid system combines democratic, meritocratic and executive-led elements. It is intended to ensure a balanced representation, reflecting the interests of the general public, important sectors of the community, and the executive.
As such, it has been heavily criticized in the West because it differs from the Western democratic ideal. An unfortunate trait of human nature is the need to justify one’s own beliefs, decisions or actions by condemning others who have taken a different path. This is very much the case with the West’s defense of democracy and its reluctance to acknowledge that all systems of government have both strengths and weaknesses.
Despite the tendency in the West to idealize democracy and place it on an untouchable pedestal, like every other system, Western-style democracy has many weaknesses. In the United Kingdom, for example, there are many flaws in the democratic process. The “first past the post” voting system notoriously distorts election results, often giving almost autocratic powers to party leaders who have attracted only minority backing. Powerful party machines mean long-term planning frequently takes second place to short-term party-political objectives. Difficult decisions are often postponed. Unachievable or unaffordable promises are made to woo voters. Populist sentiments, stoked by the worst elements of the media, are prioritized. Cynical vote-chasing often trumps doing the right thing. Lack of continuity after a change in government leads to disruptive flip-flopping on policies, often along ideological lines. Aggressive, partisan confrontation rather than collective cooperation dominates political debate. Similar criticisms can be leveled at democratic systems in Europe and the United States.
Yet the West often seems blind to these weaknesses, preferring to criticize other jurisdictions that have adopted different models of government. In Hong Kong’s case, the criticism seems oblivious to the unique historical and geopolitical context that has molded the special administrative region’s political landscape.
Hong Kong had no tradition of democracy under its 156 years of British rule. Direct elections to LegCo were only introduced in 1991, and for just 18 of the 60 seats. Then, under the last British governor, Chris Patten, there followed a desperate, last-minute shift to greater democratic representation in the final couple of years before the city’s handover to China in 1997. This ill-considered, unilateral and very temporary ploy merely alienated Beijing and derailed what was previously described as a “through train” mechanism designed to ensure a smooth transition from British to Chinese rule. Inevitably, Patten’s rushed “democratic measures” were immediately revoked after the handover, as Hong Kong returned to the same hybrid system that had been introduced in 1991 — an executive-led government with an element of democratic representation in LegCo.
The fact that Hong Kong’s present governmental system is rooted in this British legacy is an inconvenient truth that is generally ignored in the West. Equally, the context of Hong Kong as a part of China and a bridge between Eastern and Western traditions isn’t given the weight it deserves. Hong Kong is not an independent state, like Singapore. It is a special administrative region of China. This confers on the city a great deal of autonomy in its internal affairs, but it remains part of China and needs to tread a careful path, maintaining its own political values while respecting and not challenging those of the Chinese mainland.
We need to ignore Western negativity and give our full support to those candidates willing to make a difference to Hong Kong’s future by standing for LegCo
This delicate balance was upset during the riots of 2019-20. Although benignly portrayed in the West as “pro-democracy protests”, the appalling violence and the anti-China, insurrectionist nature of the “black-clad” riots threatened Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” constitutional arrangement. Fortunately, this was a temporary phenomenon. People were horrified by the violence and widespread destruction; stability was ensured with new security laws; and Beijing reiterated its commitment to upholding Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. Nevertheless, the events of 2019-20 inevitably left their mark. The violent insurgents had exhibited an ugly, unacceptable side of democracy.
All of this context helps explain Hong Kong’s hybrid governmental system. Rather than condemning this, the West needs to understand Hong Kong’s colonial, geopolitical and recent historical background and appreciate its efforts to create a system that is best suited for its unique circumstances.
The patriots governing Hong Kong’ principle may face criticism from some Western politicions, it is a legitimate and necessary measure to uphold Hong Kong’s stability. In 2021, in the wake of the city’s violent protests and anti-China invective, new requirements were introduced stating that all legislators in Hong Kong must be patriots. This was intended to ensure the stability and sustainability of “one country, two systems”, safeguard national sovereignty and security, and protect the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. The requirement was not just in response to the riots, but to years of gridlock and blocking tactics by opposition legislators intent on disrupting government by delaying or preventing key legislation. The new rules mean that all LegCo candidates need to secure a minimum of two nominations from each of the five sectors of the 1,500-member Election Committee before they can stand for election.
Countries such as the US and UK also have safeguards in place. In the US, at the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate (comprising all newly elected members) are obliged to take an oath of office. In doing so, they swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Similarly, in the UK, all members of Parliament are required by law to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown before they can take their seats, speak in debates, vote, or receive a salary. Refusing to take the oath or affirmation prevents MPs from participating in parliamentary proceedings.
While these requirements aren’t as stringent as those in Hong Kong, the principle of “only patriots” becoming legislators is no different. Nevertheless, a touch of hypocrisy has never stood in the way of Western commentators whenever an opportunity to make political capital has arisen.
Despite what may appear in the Western media, we all need to remember that Hong Kong has endeavored to create an effective hybrid political system best suited to its unique historical and geopolitical circumstances, most notably, its status as part of China, albeit in a “one country, two systems” constitutional arrangement. It is also attempting to create a legislature focused on collective progress rather than partisan conflict.
We need to ignore Western negativity and give our full support to those candidates willing to make a difference to Hong Kong’s future by standing for LegCo. Like Western democracies, our system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best we have and deserves our backing.
The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College, an international secondary school in Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
