Disunity can spell death in politics. The pan-democrat camp has a responsibility to keep that in mind at this stage of Hong Kong's political development. The democrats are, after all, the standard bearers of the wish of the majority of our city's people for universal suffrage. They can only do a disservice to this aspiration if they do not reflect it with a clear and consistent voice.
The public consultation on changes for the 2012 elections has barely begun, yet there is already dissent in the camp over how to respond. A plan for some democrat lawmakers to resign their seats is proving to be divisive and acting as a needless distraction from the important task at hand. The democrats have good reason to be unhappy with the proposals. These changes are meant to pave the way for more substantial reforms bringing in universal suffrage for the 2017 chief executive election and the 2020 Legislative Council election, which Beijing has ruled is possible. They should therefore be meaningful. Yet the government's blueprint for reform would make the 2012 elections for both only marginally more democratic. It should be improved.
This is a time when the community needs its democrat lawmakers to show their strength, their wisdom and their political acumen. They should be closing ranks and presenting a coherent strategy, focusing on how best to persuade the government to make changes to the proposals. That will certainly involve mobilising public support. But differences of opinion over precisely what to demand and how to go about getting it are weakening their case.
The plan for several democrat lawmakers to resign to force by-elections as 'mini-referendums' on democracy was misguided from the start. It was proposed even before the consultation on the 2012 elections had been unveiled. Now it is a distraction at best, and at worst a recipe for tactical disaster.
It is clear that the plan has not been carefully thought through. A government official - albeit anonymously - has raised valid questions about how the success of such an exercise would be gauged. If, say, five democrats - one in each geographical constituency - contested their seats in by-elections and only three were to be returned, where would that leave them, particularly if the votes were close? If only two were returned would that mean they could be expected to rethink their opposition to the reform package? And if all five were defeated, would they support it?
Indeed, unnecessary by-elections can rile voters, with the risk of low turnouts and unpredictable results. The idea is, no doubt, borne out of frustration with the government's proposals and a desire to give the government a powerful demonstration of the community's democratic aspirations. But the referendum idea is a ham-fisted way of making the public's views known. It highlights disunity, with mainstream democrats echoing the government's questions.