appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

isVideo

articlePageQuery

article

articleSchemaContent

content

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

hooksArticlePageFloatingButtonConfigArticle

appConfig

filter

json

liveArticle

David Zweig

I guess I just don't get it. Why are the democratic camp and the foreign media so negative about the  National People's Congress Standing Committee's decision to reject universal suffrage for 2012 but allow it for 2017? Why are the democrats mobilising for more protest marches rather than celebrating their victory?  On Saturday, the world's largest authoritarian government announced it was going to allow the equivalent of a provincial government  to directly elect its governor.
To me,  that is a great victory for democracy, not just in Hong Kong but for democratic forces around the world. Sure, the glass may be only half full, but even that is significantly more full than it was before  the announcement.
China's leaders are  cautious, and always want to  control  political developments.  The Basic Law says   clearly that orderly progress is the only route to democracy. So why would anyone  expect  the central government to  allow a democratic transition that was not at a measured pace?  Why has the democratic camp responded so negatively, and why do I differ from them?
Their great weakness is their inability  to meet  officials on the other side of the border, hence their  lack of any understanding of how mainland officials see Hong Kong.
In truth,  those authorities  remain deeply suspicious about the city's  voters. Rightly or wrongly - and in my view quite wrongly - they believe that if direct elections for the chief executive were held under universal suffrage only 10 years after the handover,  Hongkongers might elect a candidate who would oppose many of Beijing's  interests in this city.
While I see no political forces in Hong Kong advocating separatism from the mainland, Beijing leaders  do not always see it that way. In their eyes, because Hong Kong's colonial era ended only 10 years ago, many  public perceptions are still deeply influenced by 150 years of British tutelage.
But by 2017, Hong Kong will have been part of China for 20 years and, in Beijing's  eyes, another decade could make a big difference. In 10 years, Hongkongers may feel more integrated into the people's republic. They will probably  feel more patriotic, emphasising their own Chineseness over their sense of being Hongkongers. All of which means that the candidates they support in 2017 will probably  share many common interests with, and be more reliable to, Beijing.
The road ahead is neither clear nor easy, but it is largely a task of Hong Kong's own making. That is part of Saturday's victory. The Standing Committee  threw the ball back into Hong Kong's court, saying: 'We approve of universal suffrage. Now you decide a format that we can all live with.' That is fairly liberal for an authoritarian government.
Why am I optimistic? First, given the Standing Committee's 'commitment'  to universal suffrage, could the next generation of mainland  leaders really afford to welsh on this deal? I don't think so. There is no way that President Hu Jintao  would commit his successors to something  they could not  live with. Second, could the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong  afford to be seen to be seriously dragging its feet, or even undermining the city's movement towards greater democracy?  Not a chance. Hongkongers  can make it  clear to all political parties that, if there is no serious progress towards universal suffrage by 2012, they will use their voting rights to punish the DAB in the geographic constituency elections.
This applies to  the business community as well. If the proposed reforms for 2012 are fair and involve real progress towards a more open electoral process, it will be  difficult for the business sector  to argue that its narrow interests are more important than those of the community at large - especially now that the Standing Committee  has set a timetable. So the pro-business Liberal Party will be under strong electoral pressure to support a meaningful reform package.  Even the democratic camp will have to compromise in light of Saturday's  decision. While its opposition to Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's 2005 reform package was not popular, it was somewhat understandable given that no timetable for democratic reform had been fixed.
But now, with a timetable set, all sides must work together to find a formula that can work for Hong Kong as well as  the central government.
In the end, Mr Tsang will have to propose something acceptable to Hongkongers.  It won't meet the expectations or demands of people at the extreme ends of the political spectrum. But as long as city residents  find it acceptable, there will be great pressure on the city's entire political spectrum  to make it work. This, as we know,  is what democracy is all about.
David Zweig is director of the Centre on China's Transnational Relations at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology



Hong Kong’s political, business elite pay final respects to Tung Chee-hwa

Friend, leader, mentor: how political veterans remember Tung Chee-hwa

Veteran activist warns of ‘shrinking space’ for green advocacy in Hong Kong

‘Honest, principled’: Hong Kong political leaders pay tribute to ex-minister Gregory So

Donald Tsang

A giant step