Kapok: Popular sovereignty

Referenda can be divisive, very much so. And the vote over whether to remain in the European Union or not that is taking place in the United Kingdom at the very moment I write this column, demonstrates just that, or should I say reminds us of that, with the extra measure of ever invasive social media. A Poll-tracker set up by The Economist indicates that on June 20th, we were in for a tie — 44% to remain, 43% to leave, and 11% undecided. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) supporters are the leading force for what now everybody knows as “Brexit” (90%), the Conservatives are less supportive but clearly in favour of leaving (48%), so are people from the north of the country (43%), the Welsh (51%), the poor (52%) and the old (57%). The opposite is also true: Liberal Democrats (69%) and voters who identify with Labour (64%) want the UK to stay within the EU, Scots too (54%), and southerners (44%), the rich (53%) and the young (60%). Gender, however, does not seem to lean to either side — men are evenly divided, and so are women.
As a French citizen, I participated in four referenda — and for two of these I was already living abroad. The two referenda pertaining to domestic politics — the self-determination process for New Caledonia back in 1988 and the shortening of the president’s term to five years instead of seven in 2000 — went rather smoothly and did not provoke a nationwide schism. Abstention ran high, respectively 63% and close to 70%, and in both cases the highly anticipated approbation was a clear-cut winner, respectively 80% and 73% of the votes cast. Referenda only existed as a validation of something that almost everybody considered the right — even dignified— thing to do.
The other two popular consultations proved to be much more challenging, so much so in fact that the second one resulted in a rebuttal of the government’s proposal. And guess what? In both cases, Europe was at stake!
In 2005, the question was about whether to ratify the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. The “no” prevailed (almost 55% of the votes cast) whereas participation had been very high (close to 70%). This translated into a thorough revamping of the existing treaties that ultimately led to the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007, which came into force in December 2009.
Back in 1992, the question had been about the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty that was to create the European Union. As the poll was getting closer, the “no” grew in strength and then President François Mitterrand launched a very energetic campaign to convince the citizens to give their approval.
The whole atmosphere is still very vivid in my mind as I was myself campaigning for the “no”, considering that European institutions were taking yet again a bureaucratic turn, away from the democratic ideals they were supposed to not only profess but also practice.
Mitterrand had started his political crusade in my university, Sciences Po, targeting the educated and politically savvy future generation, when some friends and I unfolded the Danish flag right in front of his eyes as he was about to deliver his lecture. I perceived a certain form of annoyance in the statesman’s eyes — to the point where security services ripped apart our big bright banner! The Danes had voted predominantly against the Treaty just a few weeks before! Even though the “yes” eventually “triumphed” (51%…), and despite my own frustration, the whole experience had actually proven constructive: arguments of all hues had been laid bare and populist rants were indeed almost like a necessary evil — on both sides! This is what popular sovereignty is also about!
The infighting of epic proportion between “Brexit” and “Bremain” is thus not only about “divide” but also interest, awareness, sense of belonging, community-wide soul searching, and ultimately freedom. Branding referenda as disrespectful when they are not, illegal when they are not, can only serve one purpose: deception, not harmony.

Kapok: The Plumber and the Architect(s)

In the latest stages of the protracted public consultation regarding the amendment of the electoral law for the Legislative Assembly — remember, we have elections next year — the voice of the people has finally been heard. Over the noise of the complacent faithful, the message is loud and clear: there should be more seats, and of the kind that is directly elected by the people — a sovereign body of citizens. Ironically, it is the multitude that is proving to be the architects, with a design for the future in mind, a better one for all. In contrast, the powers that be are acting like plumbers, of a fix-it Felix sort who would have lost his enchanting capabilities.
During the first consultative meetings, only members of the legislature and supporters of well-established associations and corporations were asked to participate, and of course, apart from subdued outbursts by a few isolated participants, the sessions followed to the letter a very predictable pre-­written script.
Pro-establishment figures of the society insisted on minor adjustments or additional restrictions, with the occasional decorous pro-business “trouble-maker” making a “bold” suggestion: why not have additional “functional constituencies” now that the society has grown in size and complexity, proposed Angela Leong, a record-holder as the most absent directly-elected lawmaker.
Never mind that in Hong Kong many people are now challenging the validity of “functional constituencies” for their uneven size and composition, denouncing these so-called representatives who hold multiple votes, sometimes in multiple constituencies, and condemning the fact that 16 out of 35 candidates in these constituencies ran uncontested in 2012, thus casting a shadow on the concept of electoral competition.
In Macao, a quick look at the registered associations supposed to “indirectly elect” legislators representing only five “sectors of activity” reveals that most of them are intertwined, with such-and-such legislator, or even member of the executive council, being on the board of dozens of these “collective personalities” with the right to vote. Ultimately, in Macao, none of these “indirectly elected” legislators is ever contested in his constituency: they systemically run unopposed!  What is an election without a choice? What is the meaning of a contest without candidates to opt for?
And then, when pro-democratic and independent legislators suggest that there is a need for more directly elected seats, why is the idea being rejected on the ground that “it is not adequate to go forward with reform too quickly in [Macao’s] political development”? Why is it objected by legislators who are themselves all appointed by the Chief Executive?
Article 68 of the Macao Basic Law indicates that “the majority of [the legislature’s] members shall be elected”: we have 33 members, 14 are returned by universal suffrage whereas 12 run uncontested and 7 are still appointed (something that existed only in colonial Hong Kong), so we are either missing six additional directly-elected legislators or the electoral law should be in for a far deeper revamping than the four-fold limited adjustments presented to us.
The claim is that these highly sophisticated fine-tunings of our electoral rules are based on reports and observations made by different governmental agencies since the last time we held legislative elections in 2013. Is that really so?
Monitoring expenses and capping them: yes, correct. Strengthening the supervision of electoral activities and updating the rules for candidacy: yes, indeed, but not necessarily the way it is proposed. Defining more clearly what is meant by promotional efforts associated with an electoral campaign and regulating such promotional efforts: sure, but certainly not by completely letting go with the opening of a pre-campaign period during the six months prior to the official campaign.
On the banning imposed to elected members of the Legislative Assembly to hold any political position in a foreign country, well, this is only logical, and I find it absolutely proper, especially because it could be far more stringent and indeed impose a strict Chinese nationality upon all legislators—an extra step not many would rejoice about, I am sure, in the present legislature.

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 3rd 2016