{"id":276031,"date":"2020-11-20T05:37:06","date_gmt":"2020-11-20T10:37:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=276031"},"modified":"2020-11-20T05:37:06","modified_gmt":"2020-11-20T10:37:06","slug":"the-time-for-building-democracy-in-hong-kong-was-before-britain-handed-over-to-china-now-it-may-be-too-late","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/11\/20\/the-time-for-building-democracy-in-hong-kong-was-before-britain-handed-over-to-china-now-it-may-be-too-late\/","title":{"rendered":"The time for building democracy in Hong Kong was before Britain handed over to China \u2013 now it may be too late"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
China\u2019s actions have prompted a proliferation of eulogies for Hong Kong. (Pixabay photo)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Hong Kong is rapidly developing as a widening fault-line between China and the international community after Beijing\u2019s moves to tighten its grip on the former British territory. Reacting to the banning of four pan-democracy MPs from Hong Kong\u2019s legislative assembly (LegCo) on November 12 and the resignation of 15 other opposition legislators, foreign ministers of the Five Eyes nations \u2013 the UK, US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand \u2013 delivered a stern warning<\/a> calling China\u2019s action \u201ca clear breach of its international obligations under the legally binding, UN-registered Sino-British Joint Declaration\u201d.<\/p>\n

A statement from China\u2019s foreign ministry<\/a> in response bordered on the truculent: \u201cRegardless of whether they have five eyes or 10, if they dare to harm China\u2019s national interest, then they should be wary of those eyes being poked blind,\u201d a ministry spokesperson said.<\/p>\n

The legislators were banned under a new national security law<\/a>, passed in June, which disqualifies legislators who support Hong Kong\u2019s independence, refuse to acknowledge China\u2019s sovereignty, ask foreign forces to interfere in the city\u2019s affairs, or in other ways threaten national security.<\/p>\n

China\u2019s actions have prompted a proliferation of eulogies for Hong Kong<\/a>. In the words of Benedict Rogers, chief executive of the London-based NGO Hong Kong Watch, the LegCo has \u201cmoved one step closer to becoming a local branch of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n

British reforms too little, too late<\/h2>\n

The 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration<\/a> was supposed to guarantee Hong Kong\u2019s liberal democratic way of life until 2047. Recent developments have shown that the CCP no longer feels bound by the \u201cone country, two systems<\/a>\u201d. The demise of this formula raises the question whether this descent into authoritarianism could have been prevented. Would the situation today be different if the UK had done more to institutionalise democracy prior to the 1997 handover?<\/p>\n

\n
\n

\u201cHow Hong Kong develops its democracy in the future is completely within the sphere of the autonomy of Hong Kong. The central government will not interfere.\u201d \u2013 CCP in 1993<\/p>\n

\u201cHow Hong Kong should govern itself is decided by Beijing.\u201d \u2013 CCP in 2020<\/p>\n

Another empty promise. pic.twitter.com\/ab7RNRTDAL<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 EAP Bureau (@USAsiaPacific) November 13, 2020<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

In 2017, Hong Kong\u2019s last governor, Chris Patten, offered a self-critical evaluation. In an interview with The Guardian he suggested that \u201cwe could have done more<\/a>\u201d. This post-facto rationalisation however overlooks the constraints Patten was operating under. He was unable to serve Hong Kongers the complete menu of democratic reforms. Prior to 1997 the CCP leadership made credible threats that they would roll back political reforms<\/a> which they did not deem to be in their interest.<\/p>\n

Patten was unable to ensure that liberal democracy would remain the only game in town. A highly circumscribed democratisation provided Hong Kong democracy activists only with limited means to slow down the city\u2019s subsequent slide into authoritarianism. After 1997 the CCP engaged in a slow-motion process of dismantling \u201cone country two systems\u201d. According to policy analyst Didi Tatlow<\/a> \u201c(this) process of infiltrating, shadowing, then replacing \u2013 in essence, repurposing \u2013 can be likened to a long, silent coup, with the state security law the final flourish\u201d.<\/p>\n

CCP\u2019s silent coup<\/h2>\n

Hong Kongers did not sit idle. They have resisted the CCP\u2019s creeping authoritarianism time and again. A mass demonstration in 2003 prevented<\/a> the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law, the territory\u2019s de-facto mini constitution. Mostly young Hong Kongers also defeated<\/a> the imposition of a new Moral and National Education Policy in 2012.<\/p>\n

But the Umbrella Movement in 2014 failed<\/a> to achieve similar concessions about universal suffrage. The popular uprising against the Extradition Bill which began in 2019 revealed remarkable resilience<\/a>. But street protests on their own were insufficient to head off Hong Kong\u2019s steady absorption into mainland China\u2019s autocratic political system.<\/p>\n

Unintended consequence of \u2018gifting\u2019 democracy<\/h2>\n

Unforced errors by Hong Kong\u2019s democracy movement contributed to this most unfortunate outcome. Under Martin Lee\u2019s leadership (1994\u20132002), Hong Kong\u2019s Democratic Party (DP) failed to augment<\/a> its parliamentary line with grassroots activism. Instead of becoming a broad church opposing the Hong Kong government, disgruntled young activists turned their back on the DP.<\/p>\n

The proliferation of ever-increasing numbers of single-issue parties led to an NGO-isation of Hong Kong\u2019s political scene. And, following the 2016 LegCo election, young localist lawmakers were disqualified for deliberately misreading their oaths pledging allegiance to the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC). This publicity stunt dubbed \u201cOathgate<\/a>\u201d cost the pan-democrats their blocking majority in the assembly. Subsequently the CCP was in a position to steamroll the opposition through its proxy, the largely compliant Hong Kong government.<\/p>\n

The lack of maturity among Hong Kong\u2019s pan-democrats can also be attributed to the way electoral democracy was introduced. The Brazilian educator Paulo Freire has raised doubts about the wisdom of political elites gifting democracy in a top-down fashion. In his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed Freire pointed out<\/a> that \u201c(if) (leaders) are truly committed to liberation, their action and reflection cannot proceed without the action and reflection of others\u201d.<\/p>\n

While Patten, as governor, was highly responsive to public demands for reform, Hong Kong\u2019s democracy camp may have learned the wrong lesson: that it is enough to simply protest to get their way rather than developing highly inclusive member-based political parties.<\/p>\n

Largely symbolic opposition politics worked well during the final years of British rule, but the Chinese party-state has proved to be a much harder nut to crack. Recent attempts to recruit members for Hong Kong\u2019s unions<\/a> suggest that political activists have started to remedy this shortcoming. Hong Kong\u2019s struggle for democracy may have just begun.\"The<\/p>\n

Andreas Fulda<\/a>, Associate Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nottingham<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Hong Kong is rapidly developing as a widening fault-line between China and the international community after Beijing\u2019s moves to tighten …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":259898,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-276031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-w","mauthors-andreas-fulda-university-of-nottingham","mauthors-the-conversation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/276031","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=276031"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/276031\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":276032,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/276031\/revisions\/276032"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/259898"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=276031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=276031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=276031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}