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.
No comments:
Post a Comment