Gradual change for conservatives in HK

By Tom Plate

LOS ANGELES ― At least in the first phase of the 21st century, widely viewed as the Asian Century, all major engagements with China will be highly significant. And the integrating experience of Hong Kong ― now part of China ― might just possibly prove more significant than any other.

For if the integration process, which began in 1997 when the curtain officially and finally came down on British colonialism in Asia, proceeds apace, with goodwill and common sense on all sides, a most helpful precedent will have been established for all to observe. But should Hong Kong’s re-integration go off the rails of reason, the shock effect will be felt worldwide. The stakes, really, are no less than this.

The latest controversy in the unfolding political-integration saga revolves around proposed revised procedures governing the 2017 election of the Chief Executive ― who, in effect, is the governor of a territory where 7 million people live. Issued by the local government, with Beijing’s involvement and approval, the revisions lay out a blueprint for a direct, one-person-one-vote CE election.

This gesture toward democracy in itself represents a departure for Beijing, and I believe it is almost impossible to overstate its significance.

But a substantial portion of Hong Kong ― the “democracy advocates,” as they are termed ― take a bleak view: that the blueprint is nothing more than a cynical gesture from Beijing. They do accept that the plenary election would be technically “democratic” ― but only superficially, deceptively. They claim to locate the devil in the details of the nominating procedure itself, which strikes them as evilly rigged to produce only lame candidates, blocking the electorate from voting for real change ― or (perhaps more to the point) for one of their own candidates.

In response, the central government (squeezed between stern critics and a wary Beijing) points out that the new blueprint is in fact an improvement on the original plan that triggered the “Occupy” protest last fall. But the “pro-democracy” constituency is unmoved, and in fact may have enough votes in the local legislature to prevent the necessary next-step forward next month. This would derail the first direct-democracy election of this magnitude in China in anyone’s memory.

The “pro-democracy” critique of the admittedly complex nominating process reaches its dour negative conclusion based solely on speculative reasoning. It assumes that the 1,200-member nominating body, arguably roughly reflective of the territory’s sociology, will be impervious to reasoned argument about the public good, and that the whole schemata will prove nothing more than a crass puppet show, strings pulled by Beijing. In point of fact, to virtually any argument offered by anyone proposing to go forward with the first direct election, even as the government itself knows its plan comes up this side short of utopia, the “pro-democracy” coalition is deaf. Some members even stalked out of the government’s unveiling of the plan last month.

Rudeness and indifference to the give-and-take of public dialogue is hardly the monopoly of so-called “democracy advocates,” of course ― but in the instance of Hong Kong, the crazy city that many of us so love, it is dispiriting. Rejectionist politics is not brave; it is cowardly. It is a failure to engage and respect other views. Knowing full well that this is the latest and probably final offer if the unprecedented, CE election involving an estimated 5 million voters is to be mounted in time, such rejection is a form of political nihilism. It is dangerous and not at all creative.

If political utopia is (we all agree) impossible to achieve, then what is the honorable way forward? First, let’s have a reality check. In the U.S., for example, the number of citizens who believe our American democracy is anything other than a very flawed system could be gathered into Hong Kong’s legislative chamber with enough room left over for elephants. Recall that in 2000, our “democratic” system actually authorized a candidate to move into the White House with less aggregate votes than his opponent. So much ― one might say ― for one-person, one-vote. And in the last few years the political performance of the U.S. Congress has roughly equaled in quality that of the Duma. And, all across the U.S., in the many 50 states, elections take place featuring but two or three candidates churned up by the same old semi-closed nominating system.

It is enough to drive one to terminal despair. Nonetheless, at my end of the Pacific Ocean at least, truly concerned and sincere citizen activists push forward to try to make our system less imperfect, with voting reforms or new legislation that sometimes even triggers glimmers of optimism.

In contrast, a stubborn rejection of the middle ground in politics is always and forever a sign of extremism. It is neither noble nor helpful, and it is usually poorly advised. It is as if the Tea Party was everywhere, including Hong Kong ― when the near-know-nothings think they know nearly everything, you know the going is about to get bumpy.

Marvelous Hong Kong deserves a better fate. It should go forward with the

less-than-perfect election blueprint, see how it works on the basis of its performance, and make needed changes on the basis of actual evidence.

After all, this will not be the last such direct election, right? But to go forward from here, there has to be a first one. So this is Hong Kong’s main chance.

Prof. Tom Plate, the distinguished scholar of Asian and Pacific Studies at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, is author of “In the Middle of China’s Future.” He recently lectured at Fudan University’s Graduate School of Journalism and offered seminars at the China Daily in Beijing. He is completing work on the Third Edition of “Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew” in the “Giants of Asia” series.