Hong Kong's umbrella evolution

It is five months since Hong Kong's Umbrella revolution folded up and called a halt to its occupation of the city centre. Although none of its demands for "real democracy" was met, the student-led movement was hardly a flop. Most who witnessed the protests were charmed by the idealism of young people in a city that is often dismissed as obsessed only by money.

Students showed they care about legitimate government too. They proved that demonstrations could be peaceful. Protesters cleared up litter and set up classrooms to show they were not neglecting their studies. Although the city's government tried to portray the occupation as anarchic, the students demonstrated the opposite: that Hong Kong is a mature society with a civic-minded citizenry ready to participate in a genuine democracy.

As brave as the students were, predictably they turned out to be a resistible force. The immovable object was Beijing. China's Communist party was never going to let a bunch of street protesters back it into a corner. From its point of view, that would set a ghastly precedent. So would the idea of a citizenry freely electing its own leaders.

But what should happen next? The arguments over universal suffrage have moved into the less polite territory of the Legislative Assembly, Hong Kong's partially elected parliament. This summer, its 70 members must decide whether to accept the package on offer.

Some of the finer details are still being hammered out, but the basic outline, unveiled last week, is clear. Candidates running in 2017 for the position of chief executive, Hong Kong's top office, will be vetted by a 1,200-strong, pro-Beijing nominating committee. A maximum of three candidates, each supported by more than half of the committee members, can go forward to the ballot. At that stage, Hong Kong's 5m eligible voters will select between them.

To opponents, the rules are a sham. Candidates unacceptable to Beijing will fall at the first hurdle. Alan Leong, head of the Civic party, compared what he called "the counterfeit vote" to the electoral system in Iran, with officials in Beijing presumably playing the same role as the ayatollahs in Tehran. The 27 members of the "pan-democrat" camp who support increased democracy in Hong Kong have vowed to veto the proposal. That would ensure its defeat since passage requires a two-thirds majority. If, however, just four pan-democrats break ranks, the package will pass.

Should they? Principle says no. Pragmatism cries yes. There is a strong argument for taking the deal on offer and seeking to broaden its scope in subsequent elections, including that for the legislature in 2020.

<

The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.

There are two main arguments for rejection. The first is that Beijing has reneged on its promise of universal suffrage as laid down in the Basic Law, Hong Kong's mini-constitution. That is debatable. Article 45 of the Basic Law states that the chief executive will be chosen "by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee". Is the nominating committee broadly representative? No. It is crammed with the wealthy and the well-connected. Yet there is nothing in the Basic Law about public nomination of candidates, the central demand of the pro-democracy camp. Article 45 also states the chief executive will be "appointed by the Central People's Government". Beijing reserves its right of veto.

The second objection is that, by accepting a phoney deal, Hong Kong would legitimise the electoral process. Beijing would claim it had fulfilled its promise to bestow universal suffrage upon Hong Kong. All momentum would go out of the pro-democracy movement. That is possible. Yet the opposite is equally likely. Beijing could claim that, though it acted in good faith, Hong Kong threw the deal back in its face.

If the package is rejected now, the best Hong Kong can hope for is to be served up the same cold dish in the future. The democracy movement would be back to square one. That seems like the very definition of lost momentum.

Polls are divided as to whether Hongkongers themselves want to take the deal on the table. In essence it is a debate about evolution versus revolution. The Umbrella evolution does not sound so stirring. But it may be the best on offer.

[email protected]

© The Financial Times Limited 2015. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation