Who's hoaxing who on democracy?

During the Maoist era, before Beijing's rapprochement with Washington in the 1970s, China used to tell the world just what it thought of American-style democracy. To Beijing, it was fake democracy: American voters did not have a real choice, since candidates of the Democrat and Republican parties were both instruments of US monopoly capital.

Thus, in 1964, after the defeat of Republican candidate Barry Goldwater and the victory of Democrat Lyndon Johnson, the People's Daily published an authoritative commentary, signed 'Observer', which said: 'Both Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater, the two presidential candidates, were under the thumb of US monopoly groups ... The campaign was the usual hoax of US monopoly capital to deceive the American people.'

Four years later, after the election of Richard Nixon, the People's Daily and Red Flag - the two most authoritative official publications in China - published a joint commentary that depicted the new president as the most recent creature of 'the US monopoly capitalist class'. The president was so lacking in legitimacy that, the commentary reported, he had delivered his inaugural address 'amid angry roars from the American people'.

Nixon was the president who reached out to China in 1972 and paved the way to American recognition of Beijing and the severance of diplomatic ties with Taipei. Perhaps for this reason, after his re-election in 1976, the People's Daily and Red Flag did not continue their vituperative attacks on the American election system. But behind the rhetoric of the Communist Party mouthpieces there was an important message: an election is not meaningful unless the candidates stand for different things - otherwise the voters do not have a real choice.

These observations by Beijing have come to mind amid increasingly loud demands that, before Hong Kong can elect its chief executive through universal suffrage, it must set up a screening mechanism to vet the candidates - so that only those acceptable to the central government can be nominated.

The procedure is described in various ways. Some say 'more communication' is needed between Beijing and Hong Kong on chief executive candidates, so that only the proper ones are selected. Others suggest making the nomination procedure more stringent, to keep out those who are not to Beijing's liking. But it all boils down to one thing: giving central leaders a veto over the candidates for chief executive.