At the end of the day, Hong Kong should get a better government
Paul Letters says while Hongkongers are unlikely to realise their wish for full democracy, they should be able to persuade Beijing to allow changes that would lead to a better government
Unbridled democracy isn't going to happen and wouldn't work anyway. What could work is something much closer to full democracy than we were ever likely to see before the protesters asserted their case.
China is not ready for democracy, the people of Hong Kong are. But be careful what you wish for: Beijing's fears are not unfounded. Should a public protest ever lead to Western-style democracy in Hong Kong, it would be a green light for rebellion across China. (Paradoxically, if we could rely on the Great Firewall to keep all news from Hong Kong out of China, we would have more chance of greater freedom here.)
Over on the mainland, it would be far from peaceful, and, in the unlikely (and bloody) event that pro-democracy forces overthrew the People's Republic, violent chaos would surely ensue. Separatist forces in Xinjiang , Tibet and Inner Mongolia would lead the charge to independence, which, if only it were to be an amicable and peaceful farewell, would be no bad thing.
However, the more likely reality is that as yet unquantified, pent-up Chinese nationalism would be unleashed; the crashing together of these forces could only result in violent conflict. China would win out and its newly installed nationalistic government would be feeling more confident and belligerent than its predecessors. Think of the consequences for the disputes in the East and South China seas, Taiwan included.
Whether you like to believe it or not, the civilian leadership in Beijing not only holds together a ragbag collection of peoples within China, it restrains the firepower of a hawkish military egged on by clamorous netizens.
Let's be clear, in terms of political freedom, the People's Republic is a model only for such morally bankrupt, power-craving cliques as we see in power in North Korea or Russia. However, a political revolution would undermine much of the gains made by the hundreds of millions in mainland China, for whom communist rule has brought great socio-economic benefits in recent decades. Whereas, if you think of Hong Kong's rampant inequality, inadequate housing and overflowing class sizes, it's clear democracy could only help social progress here. A democratic revolution that would benefit Hong Kong, but not the nation of which Hong Kong is a part, presents a dilemma which goes beyond worthy ideals.
Wandering among the students in Admiralty, one cannot fail to feel uplifted by the outpouring of peace, love and a desire for freedom. Perhaps most inspiring are the multi-coloured Post-it notes of hope stuck on the John Lennon "democracy wall". While admiring the wall, my five-year-old son asked what the protesters want. He already had a sense that "government" means "chiefs", so I explained the concept of "voting" to choose chiefs whom you want. When asked what he would like to write on the wall, he replied "We want a better government", and then he added "x x x x, James".
Those of us who are no longer idealistic teenagers may feel the students - and Hong Kong - will be lucky to get anything substantive out of this. But one area where progress, in the long run, shouldn't be so difficult is that of functional constituencies. To elect one Legislative Council representative takes tens of thousands of teachers, but only a couple of hundred bankers. Scrapping functional constituencies entirely would be ideal, but democratising them to one-member, one-vote would be a compromise worth attaining.
No doubt you're thinking what I'm thinking about the convenient timing of the release of information over Leung Chun-ying's HK$50 million deal with an Australian company, which may yet bring him down - that Beijing may be behind it.
In any event, the voter base of the Election Committee which nominates candidates for chief executive must be widened.
Furthermore, if China would allow the free nomination of candidates, it could retain the power to dismiss a chief executive who proved unable to work effectively with Beijing. That power alone should be sufficient, but no doubt Beijing would feel more secure if it could also veto at least the most radical of candidates.
Accepting this would be a more realistic aim, but it would require carefully defined limits - preferably a clause stating that such veto power would dissolve in a certain number of years. In any event, in vetoing candidates after they have declared their wish to stand, the authorities would have to wield such power cautiously, to avoid a repeat of the kind of backlash we have seen over the past days.
But such a veto is not strictly necessary: the bulk of the electorate would understand that, for example, Long Hair, much as we may love him, wouldn't be the best choice for leading Hong Kong, so they wouldn't vote for him over less fractious alternatives.
Chief among the realities that the pro-democracy protesters must acknowledge is that any candidate who speaks or acts in an overtly anti-Beijing manner would not be able to lead Hong Kong effectively. Clearly it's in Hong Kong's interests to have a leader who can get along with the central government.
Democracy-max for Hong Kong cannot work, but neither can a Big Brother state. So during any negotiations between the government and the protesters, may both sides give us what they can. If nothing else, Hong Kong must have "a better government, x x x x".
