Political progress or High Noon?
The Democratic Party appears to be relishing the prospect of a dramatic showdown - not only by opposing the government's constitutional reform package in the Legislative Council, but also hoping for another major public rally in support of its own, simplistic views on universal suffrage.
The Democrats would do well to remember that last year's discontent had little to do with the niceties of electoral arrangements, and much to do with the perception that the government was no longer able to improve the livelihood of the lower and middle classes.
It also stemmed from the concern that there would be no change for the better while relations between the Executive Council, the civil service and Legco seemed irretrievably dysfunctional.
It is precisely these concerns that the new chief executive and his team are now trying to address. Public satisfaction with the government's performance has reached unheard-of levels, while the reception accorded to Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's first policy address showed a widespread feeling that many ordinary people's concerns were being taken seriously.
Whether this promising start will be sustained will depend on the administration's ability to make its executive-led system work. Such a system requires it to use one or more political groupings to control the legislature. This is what happens in, for example, the United States (most of the time) or Singapore (more reliably).
The previous colonial government missed its chance to set up just such a system. After 1997, the issue could not be put off. Unfortunately, the 'accountability system' introduced in 2002 was marred by insufficient attention to practical detail.
Under the 2002 arrangements, principal officials were detached from the civil service and made responsible for larger policy portfolios. It was hoped that this, coupled with the inclusion of a few tame members of Legco into Exco, would make relations between the executive and legislative branches more manageable.
It did not, of course. The Legco members concerned turned out not to be quite so tame. Various hopes set out in 2002 were dashed. The desired 'co-ordination in policy formation' was reduced, not enhanced. There was little sign of a 'better response to the needs of the community'. The 'provision of quality services to the public' was maintained despite the changes, not because of them. Individual ministers set up their own fiefdoms without direct supervision from the financial secretary or the chief secretary. Civil service morale fell as lines of accountability became blurred.
The newly restructured ministerial system is more carefully crafted. It therefore stands a better chance of enhancing co-operation between the executive and legislative branches. It brings 'ministers' back to the fold of either the financial or the chief secretary. It provides senior civil servants, in particular administrative officers, with clearer chains of command. It distinguishes the roles of bureau chiefs from the political figures who also serve on Exco.
And, by implication, it puts the onus on these non-official members to deliver a majority to the government in Legco in specific policy areas. Taken together with the strengthening of local government and the intention to rely more heavily on expert advisory boards, the new arrangements mark a significant step towards more coherent governance.
How will the system develop? Much depends on whether the government can continue to deliver on livelihood issues, the more moderate democrats can be persuaded to join in, and Beijing's trust is retained.
Whatever our aspirations, both caution and imagination will be needed at every step. We should respond more positively to the recent initiatives. And we should remember that no electoral system is any better than the quality of governance it produces.
Andrew Wells is a former senior civil servant and a freelance writer
