Kapok: Unsophisticated Liberal Autocracy

While recently participating in a seminar on the possibility for universal suffrage to become meaningful in Hong Kong—that is to say, truly representative of the people’s will without forfeiting both stability and efficiency— I was reminded that our sister SAR has been for quite some time characterized as a “liberal autocracy”. This formulation was popularized by Fareed Zakaria back in 1997 in a now famous article announcing “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy”. Singapore was then considered the epitome of “illiberal democracy”, consenting to elections but curtailing individual freedoms to the point that the electoral aspect of democracy had become a plebiscite exercise in favor of the People's Action Party—in power since 1959. The paradox is then that Hong Kong is (almost) everything a liberal society can wish for when it comes to individual freedoms, and yet these civil and political rights enshrined in the Basic Law, and vividly and constantly exercised by the citizenry, stop short of letting the people of Hong Kong choose their own government.
Universal suffrage for 2017, especially because it concerns the Chief Executive, is thus perceived with radically different perspectives whether you are a democrat or in government, yet the promise that the entire population of Hong Kong will get to choose its top leader was made as early as December 2007. For the pan-democratic camp, the issue of who will be allowed to run is crucial: if any candidate can compete, then this is one step closer towards democracy, and therefore liberal autocracy’s days are counted. For the pro-Beijing/pro-establishment technocratic camp, if only a limited few reasonably representative candidates can run, it undoubtedly means that individual freedoms have been expanded once more, thus upholding the core principles of the Basic Law without antagonizing the central authorities—who will ultimately “appoint” the Chief Executive regardless and are to whom he or she is accountable. On the side of the democrats, accepting a restrictive interpretation as to what constitutes “democratic procedures” in an “actual situation” that cannot contravene the “principle of gradual and orderly progress”, as stated in article 45 of the Basic Law, could very much amount to a missed opportunity and make “liberal autocracy” a potentially inescapable trap. As far as the government is concerned, making too many concessions could very much entail having to learn more from Singapore, thus tilting the balance towards illiberalism and the capacity to subvert electoral outcomes the unyielding soft way—isn’t the appointment of a communist-leaning new editor in chief at the very influential Chinese Mingpao newspaper quite ominous? Ultimately, the question is twofold: what is society ready to accept or fight for, and on whose side is time? China or Hong Kong? And what about Macao?
Far less than being a liberal autocracy, Macao has grown into an ever-unsophisticated gambling plutocracy, one in which traditional families take turns in ripping the dividends of land grants, and concession or simple operation of community services. Able commissioners in government get fired. Those exposed for their shortcomings get promoted, unless caught blatantly cheating the people. Corporatist leaders run unopposed in legislative elections. Much needed public policies are constantly delayed and always make private corporations look better than public entities. That’s a shame, really, but then, where are the new corporation heads from? Hong Kong, the United States, China, etc. I am a democrat at heart, but what hurts most is not the autocratic part of our government (legislature included), it is its lack of sophistication and the inability for elites to be renewed—not only rejuvenated. In 2017, 5 members out of 7 will have to leave the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China. In 2014, as we celebrate the 15th anniversary of our SAR, how many new faces will we count in our government?

Published in Macau Daily Times on January 16 2014.

Kapok: Of Cosmopolitanism

Cosmopolitanism is an ancient philosophy that gained particular momentum during the Age of Enlightenment, when universal values were deemed proper to the modern man. But with the advent of modern nations, nationalist ideology and its intrinsic component of xenophobia—literally “the fear of everything foreign”—made cosmopolitanism look like a perversion that threatened values such as patriotism and primary loyalty to one’s own institutions and cultural heritage. Later on, totalitarian states developed a unique abhorrence for any foreign interference, especially when that meddling was seen as a world conspiracy with domestic ramifications: Hitler was obsessed by the “Jewish peril”, and Nazi Germany ultimately decided to implement its infamous “Final Solution”—the simple extermination of the Jews in Europe. The Soviet Union made a wide usage of the nineteenth century expression “rootless cosmopolitanism” after World War II, a term used during anti-cosmopolitan campaigns targeting in particular Jewish intellectuals. With the demise of the Communist Bloc, liberal democracy was seen triumphing at long last, some even prophesizing “the end of history”. Economic globalization of people, goods and services, and its appended “interconnectedness” of the world were seen as the best guarantor of that prophecy—globalization was thus a means, a process and a goal, as it precisely equated with the original yearning of cosmopolitanism. Since then, nations and borders have been revived by the challenge of equally borderless terrorism and the shortcomings of the financial engine of the world economy. Even the European dream of a tolerant and democratic community of destiny rising up from the rumbles of war has clearly bumped into a glass ceiling.
What is there to learn from cosmopolitanism then? What did the Cynic Diogenes in the fourth century BC mean when he replied to someone enquiring about his origin that he was “a citizen of the world” (‘kosmopolitês’)? Weren’t the Stoics right to insist on the very fact that the citizens of the polis and the citizens of the cosmopolis were both aiming at the same improvement of the citizens? And for Immanuel Kant, world peace could only be instituted through the practice of cosmopolitan law grounded on the principle of universal hospitality—nothing to do with a hotel-casino here—ultimately leading to the establishment of a cosmopolitan constitution. Key to that hospitality was the ethical tolerance for the Other. And German sociologist Ulrich Beck advocates a cosmopolitan common sense or realistic cosmopolitanism as the only possible way to respond to such fundamental questions as to “how societies ought to handle ‘otherness’ and ‘boundaries’ during the present crisis of global interdependency”.
Macao is not threatened by terrorism and has been sheltered from the world economic crisis, and yet the tremendous changes brought in by its huge economic success in the past ten years have not made Macao a safer place for everybody—Beck himself is notorious for having made the point that self-assured cosmopolitan globalization is only naturally embraced by the “happy few” highly-educated globe trotters employed by multinationals. Macao is still home today to 60% of a population that was not born here. Back in 2001, less than 8% of the population had gone through tertiary education (today, it is still less than 17%). When Stanley Ho still had the monopoly on gambling—until 2002—croupiers were paid on tips. For young people, rents are just unaffordable and there are three times more young married children still living with their parents than there were back in 2001 and at least 8,000 Macao residents live in Zhuhai or neighboring areas and commute to Macao to study or work. A recent survey done by the University of Hong Kong indicates that “housing” is the top priority for 59% of respondents! And then, more than a third of the Macao labor force is of foreign origin, against less than 10% just ten years ago. Does that justify borderline xenophobic reactions from populist newly elected legislators or lethargic old foxes claiming to represent the have-nots? Of course not. Does that warrant any form of discrimination or national preference for jobs? Of course not. And yet, the worry is legitimate and the answer cannot and should not be grounded in anger and contempt. Just like communication—however widespread, fast and mobile—does not guaranty mutual understanding, full employment and mind-blowing economic growth figures do not dispel anxieties.

Published in Macau Daily Times, January 3 2014