Democracy, as a institution and a political system, is a rather good system, and arguably the best system of governance: Implemented correctly, it encourages a meritocracy where the best people lead, and the poor ones removed from office.
However, it is a means to an end: There are successful, and well-run authoritarian countries or regions, such as South Korea and Taiwan of the 1980s (that eventually democratized becoming successful technology powerhouses); and poorly run, failing democracies that were often the product of shotgun democratization, such as the current situation in Iraq.
I will happily include the People’s Republic of China in the list of “well-run authoritarian countries”: The government has put people’s economic rights at the forefront, and the result has been the phenomenal growth and associated reduction in poverty across China over the past 30 years. The leadership and resolve to build a “moderately prosperous society” is strong; and so is the goal of a “harmonious society”. More recently, the focus has shifted to political reform – and democratization is most definitely on the agenda. Indeed, in the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in October 2007, President Hu Jintao’s report mentioned “democracy” 61 times. The type of democratization, however, isn’t the type of liberal democracy seen in the West or in its smaller Asian neighbours as the CPC has no intention of ceding power. Instead, President Hu talked about “intra-party democracy” – that is, elections of Communist Party representatives on a local level and greater consultation with ‘the people’ about decisions.
In my view, this is the appropriate way to go: The experience of Iraq – or indeed, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, proves that successful democratization needs to be evolutionary, because there are two attitudes and behaviours that underpin successfully embedding and institutionalising: It needs to be credible, and it needs to be respected by rulers and subjects alike.
When dealing with a country as big and diverse as China, the progress needs to be measured. In the same way China is no longer promoting “economic development at any cost” but about balancing the haves and have-nots, political reform should not be about “democracy at any cost” but bringing about the right attitudes and behaviours for democratization to be successful.
There is little (if any) serious calls for democratisation in China at present –– while this is evidently a result of the suppression of any dissent, it is also a result of tacit approval of the CPC amongst intellectuals and the fast emerging middle classes, who have benefitted tremendously from the economic reforms and development over the past three decades.
Nevertheless, this new middle classes are becoming more vocal in the way their cities and towns are run, thus the realisation amongst the CPC that political reform is required. This is clear when one witnesses the growth in owners’ committees wanting a say over their new-found wealth in property; and also protests against local governments, e.g. the Xianglu PX project (翔鹭石化) in Xiamen, which brought out masses in protest at the city government’s plan – eventually resulting in the shelving of the project.
Protests – however frequent in a democracy – actual signal a failure of the democratic process: In a democratic system that is credible and respected, people make their views known in pollbooths, referendums, and through contact with their elected representatives, not by shouting matches conducted on the streets.
So, in a way, for the CPC to strengthen and maintain its grip on power, it needs to give people a greater say in the way its run. In that respect, the current situation is sorely lacking, as some local governments take a very dim view of protests. Nationally though, the government is aware changes are required – indeed, an amendment to the constitution introduced the concept of “human rights”:
“[The state] respects and safeguards human rights. It encourages the free airing of views and works to establish sound systems and procedures of democratic election, decision-making, administration and oversight.”
Hong Kong
Closer to home, the National People’s Congress responded to Chief Executive Donald Tsang’s consultation on electoral reform in late-December, granting Hong Kong permission to ’submit plans’ for universal suffrage for the Legislative Council, LegCo for 2017, and for Chief Executive elections in 2020. That was a blow to the aspirations of opposition politicians, who argued for a date of 2012.
The Hong Kong situation is rather different from mainland China, because Hong Kongers have had a taste of universal suffrage late in the waning years of British rule: In 1995, Last Governor Chris Patten expanded the definition of Hong Kong’s “functional constituencies” to effectively grant everyone a vote for LegCo – a LegCo that was disbanded with the handover 1997 and replaced with a “Provisional Legislative Council” made up entirely of pro-government ministers, which proved hardly convincing to any Hong Konger.
Then, there is the case of the ineffectual first Chief Executive, Tung Chee-Hwa, whose government (by luck or by design) went from blunder to blunder, from 85,000 to SARS. Perhaps ironically for the central government, a democratic election would have quickly got rid of him and replaced him with the current Chief Executive, rather than the long, protracted battle that ensured.
In Hong Kong, there is also a large, grassroots push for democracy; so we are talking about indigenous demands for universal suffrage. Although local elections bring about a rather low 30-40% turnout; they invariably select opposition, pan-democratic politicians who have stated universal suffrage as a key goal; and indeed, democracy is so central to Hong Kong’s political discourse that pro-government politicians or government ministers who attempt to belittle the democratic process will effectively commit political suicide.
Put together, the events have unfortunately led to a lingering concern and general distrust among CPC officials, who have occasionally made comments about Hong Kongers needing to be “more patriotic” – often made before elections and comically resulting in ever-greater popularity for opposition politicians.
With the flag-waving and the chanting of the national anthem at the recent torch relay in Hong Kong, surely such concerns ought to be laid to rest: With a patriotic and prosperous city that nevertheless aspires to universal suffrage, surely it should be a walk in the park?
The problems are multifaceted: The current administration is generally competent; though the politicians are viewed with distrust. However, it’s not just general distrust – but very specific:
- The central government views pan-democratic, opposition politicians with distrust as they are seen to criticize the central government at every opportunity.
- The general population views pro-government politicians as gutless – an example is the so-called ‘Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong’ (DAB), who once promised 2007 as a date for universal suffrage, only to renegade on this promise once Beijing said no.
The result is typically disastrous, with pro-government politicians invited to state banquets and state functions of all kinds, while opposition politicians take to the streets with signs and slogans. This even played out during the torch relay in Hong Kong - where a number of pro-government politicians were invited to held the torch, while pan-democrats represented by groups such as the Alliance for Patriotic Democratic Movements in China (香港市民支援愛國民主運動聯合會) dressed in orange protesting for increasing human rights.
By protesting the torch relay, it was a ‘missed opportunity’ for the pan-democrats to build up better relations with Beijing. The vice president of the Alliance, Lee Cheuk-Yan (李卓人) expressed surprise that they were jeered by Hong Kongers – clearly misjudging the situation and misinterpreting the general mood about the torch relay. Like those by anti-China protests overseas, this only served to harm their own interests.
However, it reflects greater issues in the pan-democratic camp: Pan-democrats need to examine themselves and find out why although the idea of universal suffrage has near universal support, local elections result in such low levels of interest. My thought is that they simply do not have much of an agenda beyond ‘democracy’ – and political parties remain undeveloped and unfit to lead, and thus, unable to increase enthusiasm amongst voters.
What is needed is a third way, perhaps one which I’ll call the ‘harmonious way’. That is, politicians that transcends the old divisions of the “pro-government” and “pan-democratic” camps; but instead, willing to challenge the government when necessary, but also willing to celebrate successes of the government and country when its due. It is very much a pragmatic approach, but it is also the way to build trust and credibility with the central government while maintaining trust with the electorate. It also brings own dividends – because if these politicians wish to lead the government some day, they need to have such experience in negotiating with the central government instead of taking to the streets in protest at every opportunity.
For example, it would build trust if opposition politicians would stop flogging the dead horse of “Vindicate June 4th” at every event (though the annual vigil should most definitely continue); and instead, work with the government in supporting modest electoral reforms that will be accepted by Beijing, rather than oppose anything short of universal suffrage.
Similarly – there needs to be an improved attitude from the central government towards opposition politicians. It must realise threats against opposition politicians only serves to increase their popularity, and it needs to understand that, like themselves, these opposition politicians are genuinely interested in a better Hong Kong and a better China.
With things like “universal suffrage”, the goal is very clearly defined. As a result, it is very much about finding the means to achieve the ends. If people are truly determined to achieve universal suffrage, then we most certainly need to find politicians who can transcend these old boundaries, and instead, find common ground with people who may not necessarily share their views, in order to build a democracy that is credible and respected, in Hong Kong – and some day, across the PRC.
