Public's power of veto for 2017 chief executive poll can break political impasse

Beijing is adamant that candidates for the chief executive race in 2017 must be approved by a nominating committee rather than the general public. Recently, a new question has arisen: what about giving people the power to reject the candidates? Intriguingly, it has been floated as an incentive for the Legislative Council to pass electoral reform. So far, pan-democrats are not impressed. But if the idea can break the deadlock, it is worth exploring further.

That the debate has shifted from the right to nominate to the right to veto speaks volumes for the changing political sentiment. It is true that a strong sense of disappointment prevails after Beijing imposed tougher-than-expected restrictions on the implementation of one person, one vote for the chief executive poll in 2017. But the idea of a veto, tabled by a Beijing-trusted academic, underlines the goodwill in some quarters to bridge the divide. Adding a "none of the above", or NOTA, option on ballot papers sounds simple. But it is a de facto check and balance against the nominating committee, which critics fear will act according to Beijing's preference. Should NOTA become the majority, the committee will then be forced to come up with new candidates for a fresh ballot. So even though voters have no say about who can come forward, they effectively hold veto power.

Such a mechanism inevitably adds to uncertainties. There are also logistical issues to be resolved, such as the veto threshold and whether there will be sufficient time to restart the process. In theory, it may result in endless rounds of nominations and ballots should voters be dissatisfied with any of those endorsed by the committee. But it is through such checks and balances that Beijing and the committee will become more receptive to public opinion when making their choices. So far Beijing has yet to shoot down the idea, though its feasibility has been questioned by some government allies. If NOTA can ease opposition against the reform package, there is no reason why it cannot be further discussed.