By Tu Haiming
As suggested in the recently unveiled reform proposals, the seventh-term District Councils (DCs) will have 20 percent directly elected members, which is lower than the current 95 percent. The proposed reduction in directly elected seats has caused concerns about “democratic backsliding”, which is an oversimplistic and misguided conclusion.
Democracy is a form of governance whose efficacy and worthiness should be measured by the outcomes of governance. The incumbent DCs are mostly directly elected but what they have achieved at district-level governance is dismal, which is further evidence that the quality of democracy does not hinge on the ratio of directly elected seats.
Hong Kong’s DCs are also beset by the loopholes in the election system, including the absence of an eligibility vetting mechanism and a flawed performance monitoring system, allowing politically motivated district councilors to hold hostage public interests and pervert the functions of DCs.
Under “one country, two systems”, Hong Kong is not to adopt the Chinese mainland’s democratic model or Western-style democracy. Hong Kong has to walk its own path of democracy in line with its actualities. In developing its own “Hong Kong-style democracy”, the city should focus on four major aspects.
Building a three-layer fence
As the 2019 anti-extradition turmoil demonstrated, democratic development in Hong Kong degenerating into social unrest was a case of democracy gone astray. Indeed, democratic development is premised on orderly progression, and democracy that knows no bounds will breed disaster. Therefore, democratic development in Hong Kong must be guarded by a three-layer fence.
First, there must be a boundary for the exercise of democratic rights. The 2019 turmoil went out of control when fanatics openly called for “Hong Kong independence” and repudiated China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong. On the eve of the 2019 District Council Election, the likes of Benny Tai Yiu-ting engineered a plan to assist political agitators seize control of the DCs and turn them into subversive tools against the government. Their plot was in serious contravention of China’s Constitution and the Basic Law. Such kind of “democracy” went beyond the limits of the law and would be tolerated nowhere in the world.
Second, the exercise of democratic rights must be bound by the rules established under democratic principles. Previously, opposition lawmakers exploited the Rules of Procedures of the Legislative Council, rendering it dysfunctional. Such political antics were not manifestations of genuine democracy but an affront to democracy.
Third, the exercise of democratic rights must not be allowed to trample on others’ freedom from fear. During the 2019 turmoil, demonstrations frequently morphed into riots. Those self-styled “democracy fighters” indulged in violence, destruction and arson, causing many to live in fear. These were not manifestations of democracy but crimes and democratic backsliding.
Whole-process people’s democracy
One of the highlights of the proposed DC revamp is the introduction of a monitoring mechanism for DC members’ performance, with the aim of enhancing their accountability and work transparency. Electors are not only given the right to vote but also the power to oversee district councilors. The participation of everyone in ensuring accountability embodies the essence of whole-process people’s democracy, which is a huge step forward for Hong Kong’s democratic development.
After World War II, Western democracies committed the gravest mistake of reducing the concept of democracy to electoral competition. That citizens are only galvanized into action in elections flies in the face of common sense. When democracy was born in Ancient Greece, citizens took part in every political process from democratic decision-making to democratic supervision. That should be the norm.
Tripartite composition
The proposed tripartite model of selecting DC members through appointment, indirect election, and direct election will expand the scope of talent selection by taking three perspectives.
First, from the perspective of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government, the candidates who can best implement government policies should be appointed as councilors.
Second, from the perspective of the Area Committees, Fight Crime Committees and District Fire Safety Committees, which are tasked to elect 40 percent of the DC members, the candidates who can best communicate, cooperate and work with them for the benefits of residents should be elected.
Third, from the perspective of local residents, the candidates who can best represent their interests and secure more perks from the government should be selected.
Direct election is only one of the ways to pick aspiring district councilors. Overemphasizing this mechanism will edge out other perspectives on talent selection. The tripartite composition that takes into consideration all three perspectives can best serve the purpose of selecting suitable councilors.
Hong Kong has long been plagued by problems in areas such as poverty alleviation, elderly care, housing and employment. Before the city’s electoral system was overhauled in 2021, opposition lawmakers in the Legislative Council held hostage the interests of residents and kept filibustering to prevent the passing of bills needed to address those problems. Not only did they fail to serve the people but also became a stumbling block in the pursuit of the community’s well-being. “Democracy” of such kind is counterproductive.
Hong Kong has learned a painful lesson from social cleavage and infighting caused by undesirable democratic practices in the past, thanks to the previous loopholes in its institution that allowed political agitators to, in the name of “democracy”, advance their own political agendas, challenge “one country, two systems”, engage in separatist advocacy, and foment social conflicts. Some district councilors only served people who shared their political stance and turned a blind eye to the needs of those who did not.
Democracy is never intended for creating confrontations but for achieving the greatest common interests for all. Hong Kong is a highly civilized society; its democratic path should not lead to a less civilized society but a more civilized one with better governance that can be achieved only by prioritizing the greatest common interests.
Addressing lawmakers at LegCo during his trip to Hong Kong last month, Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, emphasized that high-quality democracy doesn’t necessarily come from “one person, one vote”; it can be reflected in “consultative democracy”. The move to revamp DCs is a positive exploration of Hong Kong’s own democratic path.
The author is vice-chairman of the Committee on Liaison with Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and Overseas Chinese of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and chairman of the Hong Kong New Era Development Thinktank. The views do not necessarily reflect those of Bauhinia Magazine.
Source: China Daily
https://res.youuu.com/zjres/2023/5/17/xniaA6juVpogA3vNkYJPcO5LRJJjPDjRI6v.jpeg
掃描二維碼分享到手機