It used to be said that Hongkongers were too politically immature to handle democracy. The British said it to delay democracy in colonial Hong Kong. The Chinese said it to derail democracy in post-handover Hong Kong. And the rich class said it throughout to preserve power in their hands. No one is saying it now, except for a few diehards. They dare not. Jackie Chan tried it two years ago when he said mainland Chinese needed to be controlled, claiming Hong Kong's free society had made it chaotic. His remarks drew global derision.
I am still wondering what Chan meant by Hong Kong being chaotic. Could he have meant legislator 'Long Hair' Leung Kwok-hung throwing bananas at the chief executive? Or young people scuffling with police during protests against the excessive power of the tycoons? Maybe he meant pro-democracy politicians challenging the government's policies at every turn. If Chan thinks that amounts to disorder, he should consider relocating to North Korea.
If you want to be convinced of how politically mature Hong Kong people are, just ask Leung. He'll probably tell you they taught him a lesson or two about politics. Leung lost badly in the recent district council elections, as did all his cohorts who made radical politics their trademark. But the voters didn't punish them because they believed democracy equals chaos, as Chan would have you believe. They punished them because democracy gave them the right to punish those who misused it.
Many wrote off the democracy movement as a spent force after that election. But, just weeks later, Hong Kong had another, although smaller, election to choose the 1,200-member committee that will select the next chief executive. The voters chose to resurrect the democrats. They wanted enough democracy supporters in the committee to ensure that the election would include a democratic candidate.
First sink them for missteps, and then throw them a lifeline; that's what voters did to the democrats. Political immaturity, or a mature use of democracy? Those who label Hongkongers as being too politically immature to handle democracy are in fact saying people wouldn't know how to use their votes sensibly if given the right to choose their own leaders.
But what is a sensible use of a vote? To elect leaders who would preserve lopsided power and privilege for the rich class? To elect leaders Beijing can trust? Or to elect visionary leaders who can understand and share the aspirations of the people?