In the sweet trough of summer, as the first typhoons blow in clear skies and cool breezes, the season invites clear thinking as well. In Hong Kong, only a few months ago, the Legislative Council election excited fear, dismay and visions of persecution.
Now that the campaign has begun in earnest, it is a model of civility. The worst one can say about Hong Kong's political season is that it is framed around a single issue, with constitutional reform and democracy crowding out all other concerns. But this focusing of minds has been accompanied among both pro-government and pro-democracy parties by the most classic of political balancing acts - a search for the centre. In a best-case scenario, the election will produce not only a mandate for democratic evolution but a strategy for other changes Hong Kong so badly needs to fix its governance and structural problems.
Across the Pacific, the presidential election in the United States provides a chilling example of a single-issue campaign in which both sides are seeking to prove the superiority of their candidates as warriors, leading the country against the insidious threat of global and domestic terrorism. The American mainstream is caught in a current of paranoia so deep it may never recover.
In contrast, Hong Kong's mainstream, whatever its faults, is committed to a positive trajectory of change. There are few tears for Hong Kong's old paradigm, which no longer works. The model consisted of a technocratic elite overseeing a politically docile community committed to the pursuit of wealth. The tools used to manage a rapid-growth economy included acknowledged cartels that served to channel capital into a few talented conglomerates; explicit manipulation of property markets; and asset inflation as a substitute for grooming human capital. China's inflexible labour market created a bottomless pool of talented and desperate immigrants. Hong Kong's successful system required an unsuccessful system next door.
But what if, after 1997, Hong Kong had invented a different paradigm? It might have been based on a distinct 'system' showcasing the merits of capitalism and liberal values, with an open border demonstrating commitment to 'one country'. What if the government had introduced a vigorous new competition law? What if it had restructured its finances, broadening the tax base and ending dependence on property revenues? What if a 24-hour electronic border crossing had instantly been put in place, along with a visa system for mainlanders based on skills and job availability? Would Hong Kong have been overwhelmed, or, conversely, strengthened? What if, after years of deliberation on the Basic Law, Hong Kong and Beijing had quickly agreed on a timetable for local elections?
For one thing, the current election might have focused on issues beyond constitutional reform. Beijing might have discovered earlier that Hong Kong's most ardent democrats are not China-haters. Hong Kong might have learned how much China is driven by globalisation and how little by ideology. By allowing direct elections in Hong Kong, Beijing would have delivered a powerful message of confidence in the strength of its institutions. The indefinite postponement of universal suffrage has sent another message, of caution and anxiety.
