Promoting democracy in Hong Kong: combining prudence with idealism

By Doug Bandow

Hong Kong is part of China, but enjoys a charmed existence. Administered separately from the rest of the People’s Republic of China, the territory respects civil liberties while hosting the world’s freest economy.

Demonstrators are pressing Beijing to make good on its promise to Great Britain to provide what London never did while the territory was a British colony: democratic rule and free elections. But the PRC will not, indeed, cannot, give residents of Hong Kong what it refuses to give the rest of its citizens. The city’s future depends on finding a compromise that preserves Hong Kong’s freedom and peace.

The British colony grew out of imperial China’s weakness. But Great Britain’s imperialist land grab redounded to the benefit of the territory’s residents who enjoyed economic liberty, rule of law, and civil liberties.

London had seized Hong Kong Island, then the Kowloon Peninsula, and later “leased” the New Territories. In 1997 the latter’s 99-year term ran out. At which point Beijing was legally entitled to take back the New Territories.

Dividing Hong Kong would have been a practical nightmare. And Beijing might not have continued to honor territorial cessions forced more than a century before. So in 1984 London agreed to the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which committed her government to the full territory’s return.

The transfer left one of history’s great “What ifs”? What if Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had scheduled a referendum in which the territory’s residents could freely express their decision?

Few likely would have opted for Beijing. China still was a poor, authoritarian state, early in the process of economic reform.

At the time a still weak and isolated Beijing probably would have felt little choice but to accept an adverse vote. However, the PRC might have chosen to bide its time, as it has done with Taiwan. Then Hong Kong today would be another fractious, potentially violent, territorial dispute in East Asia.

While returning Hong Kong was Britain’s safe course, doing so meant transferring millions of people to communist China. The PRC committed to respect Hong Kong’s uniqueness for a half century.

However, Beijing never promised to hold fully free elections. Rather, the 1984 declaration stated: “The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People’s Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.”

The Basic Law (essentially the territory’s constitution), approved six years later by Beijing, provided for “nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.” The PRC claims that is what it is implementing.

As of 2017 residents will be able to elect their ruler, but only from candidates vetted by Beijing. It won’t be real democracy, but then, there never was much chance that the Chinese Communist Party would institute real democracy in any area under its control.

That’s not fair to Hong Kong’s residents. So it’s impossible not to admire the protestors. However, their very passion threatens their objective.

They have divided over tactics, while paralyzing city life, thereby sparking criticism from some other residents. Even many who sympathize with the protestors fear a crackdown.

The greatest risk is that the Chinese leadership might believe it must choose between repression and either chaos or democracy. In 1989 the CCP sent in tanks to clear democracy-minded demonstrators out of Tiananmen Square.

Beijing would pay an even higher price for cracking down in Hong Kong. Still, the Chinese regime places self-preservation above everything else.

Moreover, if China violently dispersed the protestors, it would not likely stop there. Media freedom and judicial independence also would be at risk.

Last week crowds thinned and demonstrators cleared a path for government workers. Tension further eased as demonstrators and government officials agreed to talks. Democracy advocates should temper their idealism with an acute sense of pragmatism.

Beijing might sacrifice the territory’s chief executive, Leung Chun-ying, to gain peace. Zhongnanhai also might be willing to make other concessions, such as broadening the nomination process. But the PRC will insist that Chinese officials, not Hong Kong residents, be in charge.

Nothing the U.S. does can bring democracy to the territory. To the contrary, the more Washington attempts to intervene, the more likely China is to perceive the demonstrators to be threats.

Democracy advocates have moral right on their side. Still, raw power is likely to prevail in any showdown. The protestors must temper idealism with prudence. They must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good for their own sake ― and ultimately that of Hong Kong and China as well.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of ``Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire’’ (Xulon).