Strike a middle path on Hong Kong's electoral reform for 2017
Michael Davis says since the proposals for electoral reform put forward by those at either end of the political spectrum fail the Basic Law test, efforts must focus on more moderate ideas
As the consultation over the method for selecting the chief executive in 2017 comes to an end, there is a need to evaluate various proposals. Much of the discussion has focused on what Beijing will or will not accept. This ignores too much the standards that should be applied, as laid out in the Basic Law.
The focus on Beijing's intentions is understandable; political compromise will certainly be part of this debate. But discussion of compromise should not neglect Basic Law requirements.
Any choice by Beijing to ignore or "interpret away" such requirements would imperil more than a free and fair election. Surrendering legal requirements to political expediency would imperil Hong Kong's most enduring value - the rule of law, a value at the heart of the Basic Law.
Article 45 states: "The ultimate aim is the selection of the chief executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." Terms such as "universal suffrage", "broadly representative" and "democratic procedures" should be given their ordinary meaning.
The requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are included in the Basic Law, both by virtue of its incorporation in Article 39 and by its widely recognised role in defining universal suffrage.
It is not in Hong Kong's interest to deny free and fair elections. A modern democratic Hong Kong will surely not want to hide behind a 40-year-old British colonial reservation to the international covenant's democracy requirements. Such a reservation has long been rejected by the UN Human Rights Committee.