The pro-democracy march on January 1 did not attract as many protesters or have nearly the same shock value as its more famous counterpart in the summer. But the unexpectedly high attendance of about 100,000 people was rightly seen as a strong indication of our community's aspirations. And there was every expectation that the march for democracy would become an annual event.
So the news that the organisers are not planning to hold a march next January comes as a surprise. If no demonstration is held, it will be the most striking sign that the pro-democracy camp is pursuing a less confrontational strategy.
A decision not to hold a march in January has already been taken by a working group within the Civil Human Rights Front. It is likely to be confirmed when the organisation meets next week. Such a move would be in keeping with the cooler political climate that now prevails, and it might help smooth the way for democrats to enjoy increased communication with Beijing.
But the decision should not be taken as evidence of a defeat for the movement, or as an indication that people's desire for democracy has weakened. Progress is being made - and that has much to do with the three big demonstrations held over the past 16 months.
Some might argue that last January's march was counterproductive. It was held only a few days before the chief executive's policy address and one of the main aims was to urge him to set out a timetable for consultations on political reform. Instead, Tung Chee-hwa revealed that no public consultation would be held until the central government's views had been sought. A taskforce was immediately set up for that purpose. Within a few months, Beijing had ruled out universal suffrage for the elections to be held in 2007 and 2008.
But much has been achieved since then by the pro-democracy camp. This can be judged by turning the clock back to June 2003, just before the first demonstration. At that time, there was no sign of any developments on political reform. Indeed, pro-government parties in the Legislative Council had even voted to ban any discussion of the issue.
