Hong Kong's pan-democrats must return to the middle ground

After some two years of political disputes, the Hong Kong government has finally put forward its proposal for reform of the chief executive election in 2017, devised within the framework laid down by the National People's Congress Standing Committee. However, the package is vigorously opposed by the pan-democrats, due to restrictions on the nomination of candidates.

No sooner had the initial phase of political reform discussions begun when the pan-democrats began a series of combative civil disobedience strategies. First, they threatened to launch the Occupy Central campaign, which triggered alarm and disapproval within the central government.

Then, they launched an electronic referendum on universal suffrage, which probably provoked Beijing to issue its white paper on the practice of the "one country, two systems" policy in Hong Kong, and to lay out the political reform framework on August 31. The Umbrella Movement kicked off after that.

Such extreme actions have only made the central government more determined to take a hard line. Thus, the reform package is more conservative than had been expected.

Such an outcome clearly demonstrates the failure of pan-democratic strategies.

Mainstream pan-democrats originally had two plans, to use both resistance and negotiation. However, owing to pressure from extremists, combat has become their only strategy. That means that those who support the milder way - negotiation - are being suppressed.

In terms of how to achieve universal suffrage, the pan-democrats as a group have never put forward a concrete proposal for public discussion, with information about their general principles and claims about international standards. This reticence is a puzzle; people don't know what the pan-democrats really want. They have suggested civil nomination, but that idea violates the rules of the game and merely hardened the stance of the central government.