Rulers of Hong Kong must effect change before it's forced on them

Is there a way out of the current political malaise? This puts the question rather innocuously, as others are describing what's going on as a political crisis; they warn about violence and paint all manner of gloom-and-doom scenarios.

Let's just summarise where we are: the chief executive has public opinion poll ratings going through the floor, a number of high officials are either on trial or stand accused of a variety of corruption offences, and triad criminal gangs have been reintroduced into local politics.

Meanwhile, the impasse over democratic reform remains and signs of an agreement appear as far removed as ever. Indeed, positions are becoming polarised before formal consultations have even begun.

Does all this sound too gloomy? Maybe, but for many people, life goes on pretty much as usual despite the political fireworks. Having said that, we cannot ignore that life as usual for an astonishing 17 per cent of the population means struggling for existence on the poverty line.

However, a harsh fact of political life is that the poor are rarely a priority and the really poor rarely revolt; they may provide the ground troops for a revolt but those who effect change are rarely drawn from the bottom of the pile.

History teaches us a number of other things about how change comes about, but the prime lesson is that, in failing systems, those in charge tend to wait too long to reform and even if they do act, they tend to be too late. There are exceptions, notably the foresight of the former South African president F. W. de Klerk, who realised that the privileged position of the white minority could end in disaster if he did not accept majority rule and seize the incredible opportunity of having Nelson Mandela as a counterpart for negotiations.

Closer to home is Taiwan's former president Chiang Ching-kuo, who realised that the only way for his Kuomintang party to survive was to relinquish one-party rule and embrace democracy.