Art of compromise
The consultation on political reform has just ended. However, we are no closer to reaching a consensus on the electoral methods for both the chief executive and the Legislative Council in 2012. Rather, there seems to be a growing rift among the pan-democrats while pro-government forces also struggle to settle their internal differences, and are thus unable to offer constructive alternatives.
The resignation of five opposition lawmakers from the Civic Party and the League of Social Democrats has effectively set off a de facto referendum, putting pressure on the government to speed up the democratisation process. In the meantime, the pan-democrats have joined forces with various sectors under the Alliance for Universal Suffrage to try to secure a guarantee that there will be genuine universal suffrage in 2017 for electing the chief executive and in 2020 for all members of Legco. They have also demanded a road map from the government on how to phase out functional constituencies by 2020.
The pan-democrats may not all support the referendum strategy, but most of them agree there is a pressing need to abolish functional seats and for a road map to full democracy. They have threatened to veto the proposed electoral reform package, as they did in 2005, if their demands are not met.
I have long supported the scrapping of functional seats to pave the way for genuine, fair and equal suffrage. The Basic Law stipulates that the elections of the chief executive and Legco have to be carried out in accordance with Hong Kong's actual situation and the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate goal is to have the chief executive selected by a broadly represented Election Committee through a democratic process, and all members of Legco elected by the one man, one vote system. But under the Basic Law, amendments to how the chief executive and Legco are elected after 2007 must be supported by two-thirds of our lawmakers. Then they need the chief executive's approval before being presented to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for final endorsement.
Unfortunately, the unending differences among lawmakers will not help to speed up democratic reform. Legislators need to seriously reconsider their strategies and discuss electoral issues in a more rational and pragmatic manner in order to forge a consensus. Our democratic development was brought to a standstill when the previous reform package was vetoed in 2005. At that time, lawmakers rejected a government-sponsored package of incremental reforms to the mechanisms for electing the chief executive in 2007 and forming Legco in 2008, with the ultimate aim of universal suffrage as prescribed by the Basic Law.
In that package, the government tried not to change much of the electoral mechanism; it suggested that 30 lawmakers would continue to be returned by functional constituencies and an equal number by geographical constituencies through direct elections. It proposed to double the size of the Election Committee to 1,600 members and add 10 seats to Legco. The committee's expansion would have included all members of district councils, including those appointed, while a bigger Legco would increase the number of seats elected through geographical and functional constituencies by five each.
Originally, the idea was well supported by the public and many lawmakers, but eventually it failed to receive majority backing in Legco. Members on both sides will always see their actions being restricted by this awkward balance of power in Legco and, as long as they are unable to find common ground, our democratic development will remain at a standstill.
Those who suggest that all functional seats be abolished are asking for the impossible. It's not that the chief executive doesn't want to get rid of this unpopular legacy, it's that his hands are tied. And there will never be enough support for it in Legco because no one would be stupid enough to smash his own rice bowl, so to speak.
Albert Cheng King-hon is a political commentator
