Hong Kong won't be fooled by Beijing's offer of warped democracy
Stephen Vines says Beijing seeks confrontation to bring city under control
So it's come to this - Hong Kong's democrats are being called upon to accept a deformed version of universal suffrage that closely resembles the warped system devised by the ruling theocracy in the Islamic Republic of Iran. And, if they reject this deformation, they will be blamed for setting back democratic reform.
Beijing's proposals are designed to foster confrontation and show that the central authorities will not blink when it comes to maintaining tight control over the special administrative region.
Meanwhile, the Beijing government has ceased to pretend that the SAR's own government has any significant role to play in important decisions.
Cleverly, Beijing has succeeded in moving this debate's centre of gravity so that the starting point for expectations is somewhere in the nether regions. The usual suspects, who nurture intense dislike for the democratic movement but pretend to occupy the middle ground, have emerged with glee to berate true believers in universal suffrage for not accepting that something is better than nothing.
However, nothing is precisely what's on offer. As matters stand, the same group of Beijing loyalists who "elected" three failed chief executives will, for the 2017 election, simply confine their selection of candidates to whosoever they are ordered to select by their masters.
Outside of the Hong Kong cocoon, a record of three consecutive failures signals a serious problem. In the bizarre world of today's Hong Kong, it is described as an "opportunity".
The born again "low-expectationists" have developed the idea that granting universal suffrage is equivalent to the introduction of democracy. They are either blissfully unaware of history or determined to ignore contrary evidence. Universal suffrage without real choice is the system that prevails in North Korea's ghastly dictatorship, and it was practised in the now dead Soviet Union.
The only difference is that, in these authoritarian regimes, citizens were compelled to vote whereas, in Hong Kong, there will be no compulsory voting. Nor would there be any reason to go to the polls, if the planned system is brought into being.
That said, the democrats' critics have a point in highlighting their lack of tactical ability. The democratic movement was outmanoeuvred by Beijing.
It is wasting time with its current emphasis on civil disobedience, in preference to mobilising the vast majority of Hong Kong people who have consistently demonstrated their belief in democratic rule and back the idea that this territory's way of life is worth preserving.
Nevertheless, the democrats' lack of tactical sense is secondary to the bigger picture of what's happening here. The rulers in Beijing are making it clear that Hong Kong should abandon hope of being able to democratically choose its own government and, more fundamentally, are asserting the end of the "one country, two systems" concept.
Like all authoritarians, the bosses in Beijing focus on control, above all else. So when they look at Hong Kong, it pains them to see that freedom of speech has yet to be eliminated, that the rule of law supersedes the party's rule and that the people have failed to understand who's really in charge.
Against this background, we can understand why Beijing is looking for confrontation to bring Hong Kong people under control. Anyone naive enough to imagine that this will be limited to imposing a phony form of democracy clearly knows nothing about how dictators work.
Beijing and its supporters in Hong Kong are fundamentally on the wrong side of history. It is quite conceivable that they can win this battle for suppressing democracy but they will lose the war to subjugate Hong Kong.
