Advertisement
Advertisement

Much ado about very little

Whatever the number of people who marched last Sunday, it was higher than everyone expected. The organisers did a good job: they advertised the event in the press and publicised it on the radio.

The Article 45 Concern Group announced plans to form a political party at the right moment. Anson Chan Fang On-sang's decision to attend probably encouraged people to go, as did comments from certain tycoons.

The organisers were also effective in raising expectations about what the march might achieve. Members of the pro-democracy camp are now saying the ball is in the government's, or even Beijing's, court, as if a major concession is just around the corner. They are saying the administration here, or in Beijing, is under pressure to announce a major shift. Maybe many people believe this, but I am not one of them.

All the signs are that any amendments to the government's electoral reform package will be relatively limited, and probably not enough to get it passed in the Legislative Council. In particular, it looks unlikely that the opposition will get the timetable for universal suffrage that they have been demanding.

I have called for such a timetable myself in the past, and I can see how it could make things much easier. It would force all of us to focus on getting a broad consensus on our future democratic structure. But it is a chicken-and-egg issue. To Beijing, we need to prove that we can agree on future reforms step by step, and implement them successfully, before getting the go-ahead. Beijing sees new structures as untried, and therefore possibly risky.

What all this comes down to is something we have seen for several years, and that is this continuing lack of trust in both directions. This is a great pity, because for a while it seemed we might be making progress in building trust - for example, with the visit in September of legislators to Guangdong. Now, if the reform package fails, we will be back where we were before, with everyone blaming each other for the standstill.

How many of the people who marched on Sunday support the rejection of this package? And how many would prefer to see it accepted on the grounds that it is better than nothing? I don't know the answer to that question, but I do think it's sad that so many leaders and opinion makers feel less threatened and more comfortable with the status quo - rather than with the small but real step forward represented in the government's package.

The pro-democracy camp prefers to reject this package because they see it as leading to long, drawn-out delays that never get us to the ultimate goal. They believe rejection can bring bigger reforms faster. But conservatives are also quite happy to stay with the current system. If the government's package is accepted, the obvious question is, 'What next?' They would be delighted to postpone that question for a few years.

The most likely outcome, if the government's bill is rejected, is that little or nothing will change in the years ahead.

I agree that the pressure for change will remain. Our structural problems, such as government-Legco relations, will continue. The middle class will continue to feel excluded. But the reality of Beijing's ultimate role in our constitutional development will also remain as it is.

And our national leaders' view of demands for universal suffrage will probably remain sceptical, and perhaps even harden. The pro-democracy camp should think hard about that last point before they vote in a few weeks' time.

Bernard Chan is a member of the Executive Council and a legislator representing the insurance functional constituency

Post