In the current debate on constitutional reform, all eyes seem to be focused on the turnout for the pro-democracy march on Sunday. The rally might indeed decide the negotiating strategy and tactics of the main protagonists - the government side and the pro-democracy camp.
However, it will not materially change the situation: if there are not enough shared incentives to strike a compromise deal, then there will be no agreement.
Whether the number of marchers turns out to be 10,000 or 100,000, there is no question that the majority in the community favour the early introduction of universal suffrage for electing the chief executive and all members of the Legislative Council. That has been confirmed by repeated polls over the past few years.
The universal suffrage issue cannot be dodged any longer, whatever the fate of the government's electoral reform proposals for polls in 2007 and 2008. Even if no deal is made on the proposals, the political and institutional deficiencies caused by the lack of a democratic mandate must still be addressed. A popular government leader is no replacement for institutional legitimacy.
Democratic politicians say they will not consider any package that includes appointed district councillors either getting seats on the chief executive Election Committee, or choosing Legco functional constituency members. They also question how such a model could logically lead to full democracy.
Hence, the government has more explaining, persuading and even refining to do. Conceptually, the arrangements for 2007 and 2008 are distinct from the universal suffrage issue, but they should be part and parcel of a larger constitutional road map. It is a pity that the present debate on a road map or timetable has remained at a superficial and, at times, rhetorical level.
Those in favour of early universal suffrage have mostly only stated a grand position. Those opposed to or sceptical about it claim they support universal suffrage - but not now. Yet they fail to elaborate on how and when it can be achieved.
