Public consultation on constitutional development is now under way. Many campaigners for universal suffrage in 2007-08 are boycotting the process, sticking to their original demand even though it is clear it will not happen. By refusing to join in, they are effectively declaring that this review cannot and will not bring worthwhile reform. I believe it is essential to prove them wrong.
The decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress was stricter than most people expected. Not only did it rule out full democracy in 2007-08, it rejected various other reforms, such as raising the proportion of legislators elected through universal suffrage. It also stressed such principles as gradual and orderly progress and representation for all sectors, without specifying what these mean in practice.
These principles could be used as arguments against meaningful reforms for 2007-08 - and that would prove the pan-democrats right. With a constitutional reform bill needing a two-thirds majority of all legislators, the pan-democrats could easily veto a proposal offering only superficial changes. That would be very bad news. It would split the community terribly. And it would leave us with the current system, which nearly everyone accepts is not working. We need change to improve the quality of government.
The phrase 'gradual and orderly progress' also seems to require meaningful change. 'Gradual and orderly' means that full democracy in 2007-08 is not an option. But the word 'progress' surely means that the status quo is also not an option.
What do I mean by 'meaningful' change? I mean a genuine broadening of political participation. This review must produce proposals to bring a wider range of people into the political system. Those proposals must win enough public support to pressure the pan-democrats into voting for them. Inevitably, in my view, this means transferring some political power from a relatively small business elite to the rest of the community, especially our educated, industrious middle-class taxpayers.
How can this be done within the limits laid down by the Standing Committee? I was recently asked on the Post's letters page whether I would support the idea of opening up functional constituencies to all taxpayers employed in the relevant business sectors. My reaction was 'why not?' I replied that it would be a serious change.