Donald Tsang Yam-kuen was full of hope last week over discussions on how candidates should be nominated for the chief executive election. It was a 'pragmatic step forward', he said. Speaking after talks at the Commission on Strategic Development's group on political development, Mr Tsang said: 'We have entered a new phase of work.' He said the most difficult electoral issues - such as a timetable for universal suffrage - could be resolved more easily after reaching a consensus on the easier areas. Now, the nominating mechanism - one of the most important parts of the electoral system - has finally been put on the agenda, months after its inception. On the face of it, the nominating mechanism and procedures should never have been an issue. Under a universal suffrage system, prospective candidates should be subject to only minimal restrictions on their right to stand. Voters have the final say on candidates. The Basic Law provides for the formation of a broadly representative nominating committee to name candidates through democratic procedures. But it does not say clearly that the nominating body has a duty to vet the aspirants. The issue of the nominating mechanism and procedures has emerged as perhaps the most crucial part of the universal suffrage system. That is because the city's democratic development is so complex given the 'one country, two systems' policy. Beijing wields overriding power in the choice of a chief executive. So there is always the possibility of the central government vetoing a candidate elected through universal suffrage - which would precipitate a constitutional crisis. But if Beijing had a veto over candidates at the nomination stage, it would make a mockery of the spirit of free and democratic elections, and the principle of a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong. So a delicate balance must be struck between the integrity of a universal suffrage system on the one hand, and the concerns - in Beijing and some quarters of the community - about a standoff over the winning candidate, on the other. A diversity of views about the nominating system emerged at last week's session. Democrats feared that excessive restrictions on the nominating mechanism would effectively become a tool to screen out political dissent. Pro-Beijing figures argued that, to ensure candidates were acceptable to Beijing, delegates to the National People's Congress should have a say on the nominations. The 'one country, two systems' policy is a high-stakes gamble for Beijing. It cannot afford any risks over the introduction of universal suffrage in Hong Kong. At the same time, it is obvious that the whole purpose of holding an election would be defeated by an overly restrictive nominating procedure. The chief executive polls of 2002 and 2005 made that clear. Both Mr Tsang and his predecessor, Tung Chee-hwa, were elected unopposed. That exposed the intrinsic flaws of the electoral system - namely, its failure to stage a genuine contest of ideas, visions and blueprints for action. The two elections further alienated the people from the government, defeating the goal of uniting the community through participatory democracy. Seasoned mainland-watchers have observed that Communist Party authorities are all in support of elections - as long as they know the results beforehand. The debate over the rules of nominations will be interesting: it will shed light on Beijing's degree of trust in the ability of Hongkongers to choose the best candidate who is acceptable to both sides of the border. Chris Yeung is the Post's editor-at-large