An election in name only
Ever since China's president at the time, Jiang Zemin, singled out Tung Chee-hwa for a handshake in Beijing - to signal to the world that he would be Hong Kong's first post-handover chief executive - I have wondered if the way we choose our top leader should be called an election, even for official purposes. Looked at in the context of how democratic elections are understood, the procedure is anything but that.
Still, many fall back on that description out of habit, and because we have been drilled into believing the government's propaganda. Those who have not been duped describe the event derisively as an anointment.
Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen readily agrees that many view the process with 'a certain amount of disdain'. He told me in a recent interview: 'At the end of the day, the appointment [of the chief executive] will have to be approved by the Central People's Government. Then you can put a derogative spin on it.'
In March, the process designed to mock democracy will reach a climax when the 800 members of the 'Election Committee' will choose the next chief executive. The process will take a first jab at democracy on Sunday, when a few privileged voters will choose the committee members. But, aside from the few democrats in it, the committee doesn't elect - as much as it studies the political wind from the north and then bends accordingly. Why else do you think Mr Jiang shook hands with Mr Tung, if not to send a signal to the committee? And why else did President Hu Jintao need to say, just two weeks ago, that he 'fully recognised' Mr Tsang's performance as chief executive - if not to tell the committee how to vote? In the context of both the spirit of democracy and 'one country, two systems', this amounts to interference in an election to ensure an outcome.
The process is useful in one way: it reminds the public that, whatever spin is put on its name, we will again be led for another five years by a leader not of our choosing. When, exactly, we can freely choose our own leader is not up to us or even our chief executive, but to the unelected leaders in Beijing. That poses another question, this time a rhetorical one: if and when we have direct elections, will our leader be answerable first to us and then to Beijing, or the other way round? The answer is obvious.
In a true democracy, the electorate is the highest authority. It dictates whether presidents and prime ministers should stay or go. But even if full democracy comes to Hong Kong, the central government will remain the highest authority because the person who is elected still needs the formal blessing of Beijing, and we know it will not appoint an elected leader it doesn't like. So, if we ever have a 'one person, one vote' system, could we still really call it an 'election' in the true sense?
Critics will grumble that such talk amounts to treason - an advocacy of independence: for only then could Beijing play no hand in our political process. This, of course, is nonsense. Beijing isn't supposed to interfere in our politics anyway, just foreign affairs and defence.
This means that if, by some freak accident, we elect 'Long Hair' Leung Kwok-hung as chief executive when we are allowed universal suffrage, it is Beijing's duty to formalise that outcome. If Mr Leung made a mess of things, then only we, the people, could throw him out.
But, for all that to happen, Beijing needs to trust our choice and the system. It doesn't.
