Consultations, like the one on political reform that just concluded its second phase on April 23rd, constitute great tools for governments and even greater opportunities for fruitful and vibrant state-society relations. They allow for people to directly voice their opinions and for “opinion shapers” (political parties, associations, newspaper editors, academics, etc.) to articulate their standpoints. They provide the government with a clearer picture of what the society might be vying for, and both majority views as well as minority options are being heard. They also give a chance to mutual understanding and innovative solutions to emerge, thus allowing for truth to drive out falsity and for entrenched assumptions to be dissipated — remember John Stuart Mill and the argument he made in his classic ‘On Liberty’ (1859) in favor of freedom of speech. Ultimately, consultations reinforce the legitimacy of a government by allowing democratic debate to flourish and for accountability to be pushed to the fore.
What went wrong then?
The short answer is: the usual. Quantity (number of consultation rounds, number of opinions, length of rounds, etc.) cannot compensate for the lack of quality (all opinions being heard, scientific process in collecting them, awareness of the general public, lively debate by opinion shapers being reported in full, etc.). Opinions are good, but then they are not decisions, and if the intentions are biased (let the steam be vented, and that only) then you end up with frustrations and a deep-rooted feeling of disempowerment on the public side (we talk, they listen and ultimately decide otherwise).
Starting with the issue of awareness (or lack thereof) of the public: on one side, the claim by the government that there is such a thing as a “mainstream” opinion and that (surprise, surprise…) it supports the government’s proposal (2+2+100), with the government-sponsored monthly ‘Macau’ stating that 85% of the population support the political reform; on the other side, a survey commissioned by the New Macau Association to Robert Chung, Director of the Public Opinion Program from the University of Hong Kong, shows that only 43% of the population are aware of the consultation process, and that a mere 3% did participate. Mainstream, what is your name? In the more than 100,000 (yes, this is correct ladies and gentlemen, 100,000!!!) opinions received on April 24 alone as it was reported by SAFP director Jose Chu? Big numbers, whatever their nature, bring the predefined mainstream opinion some kind of reassuring twist…
Continuing with the quality of the debate and the diversity of points of view (or lack thereof): why were moderate approaches to political reform such as the ones championed by Agnes Lam’s Civic Power or the lay Catholics expressing their view through public debates in the Macau Observer not given more attention? Agnes Lam posted on her Facebook page that none of the applicants from her organization were allowed to participate in the final round of open public consultation. Why are all the excellent surveys and polls that I strongly suspect were done by the only competent institution in Macao able to conduct such studies, ERS Solutions, neither published in the press nor disclosed to the public? Why is it that we read contentious points of view only in the Portuguese and English press? Why is it that when a more challenging opinion is published in Chinese it can only find its way in ‘Sonpou’? Why is it that radicals are always on display and castigated as “trouble-makers”?
Macao is a place of encounter and cultural diversity: why is it that political debate doesn’t reflect that rich and promising heritage?
Published in Macau Daily Times on April 28 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment