Forty years ago, at the height of the civil rights movement, key states in the Deep South of the United States embraced racism and abandoned the Democratic Party, which had just pushed through racial desegregation at the polls and in public schools. In doing so, they began a long decline. As a result of choices made in the 1960s, with few exceptions, the American south is mired in poverty, drugs and ignorance. The public school system is a national disgrace. Its young people move out as soon as they can. Towns that in my childhood were bustling centres are now deserted. You could buy their ghostly mansions for a song, but nobody wants to live there.
Any link between this far-off tragedy and Hong Kong is no greater than my footsteps. They took me once again this month to Alabama to visit relatives over the holiday season and, as ever, the trip made me thoughtful. While Asian growth has catapulted forward, the rural towns of Dixie have shrivelled, where my ancestors lie under tombstones. The curse is self-imposed, so one could argue that the bigots got what they asked for and deserved. Yet there are moments in history when minor decisions can translate into great mistakes. Is this Hong Kong's moment? Hong Kong's big issues are no mystery. They are, in order, how to deal with democracy, globalisation, and Chinese sovereignty. The simplest of Hong Kong's problems is its relationship with the mainland, largely because the central government is fairly easy to read. It wants control, it wants stability and it benefits from Hong Kong's success while not depending on it. Every day since 1997 has tested the assumption that Hong Kong can be a leader within China by exploiting its local and regional assets. The next year is the one that Hong Kong could demonstrate that its strengths have become liabilities, if it fails to deal with its other two challenges.
Globalisation is on the list because of an outdated myth that Hong Kong is a free-market superstar. Like many other managed economies in East Asia, Hong Kong has been successful in international trade, while practising protection in its domestic market. The system worked as long as the economy was booming, but now, a lack of growth is exposing the rigidities of its property, utilities, retail and service sectors. Structural change is vital if Hong Kong wishes to remain one of the delta's larger cities, yet its large conglomerates protect their local fiefdoms while benefiting from privatisation and market liberalisation elsewhere. Such entitlement must end.
Few would contest that Hong Kong is in the midst of a crisis over its political system. Like the race issue in the American south in the 1960s, democracy is tearing apart Hong Kong's once all too cosy body politic. Quite simply, the democracy movement has left no room for those who would defend halfway measures, such as enshrining functional constituencies in the electoral system in order to avoid a full popular vote.
The end-game now is to engineer direct elections in a manner that will put to rest Beijing's anxieties over Hong Kong's ultimate loyalty. The obvious strategy is to couple constitutional reforms with the enactment of a tough new security law. Democracy advocates will need to begin to think beyond their own presumptions of moral authority and become flexible. Much like the opponents of desegregation, Beijing will not be talked easily into accepting democracy. But without its consent, democracy will never happen, and without democracy, Hong Kong will self-destruct.
History can move backwards as well as forwards. It is never easy to gauge the point of no return, yet Hong Kong seems likely to meet it soon, if it has not done so already.
