Winnipeg Free Press - ONLINE EDITION
Posted: 09/4/2014 1:13 PM | Comments: 0
It’s enough to make you think you can’t trust a repressive authoritarian regime to honor its word. For years, the Chinese government had assured the people of Hong Kong that by 2017 they would be allowed to elect the city’s leader. On Sunday, though, it might as well have said, "It depends on the meaning of the word ‘elect.’"
Instead of holding a truly free election, Beijing said it will permit just two or three candidates — and only those approved by a panel that undoubtedly will be controlled by the Communist Party. The government stipulated that anyone allowed to compete must "love the country and love Hong Kong."
The effect, and obvious intent, of these rules is to block any pro-democracy contender from entering the race. One critic said it amounts to letting citizens choose any one of the Three Stooges.
"Hong Kong people are right to feel betrayed," said pro-democracy lawmaker Alan Leong, The New York Times reported. "It’s certain now that the central government will be effectively appointing Hong Kong’s chief executive." No sense in letting the true desires of Hong Kong residents get in the way of Beijing’s plans.
The city, long a British colony, reverted to Chinese rule in 1997, with the central government proclaiming a benevolent, largely hands-off policy of "one country, two systems." Hong Kong still enjoys considerable governing autonomy, a judiciary and bureaucracy inherited from Britain, and wide-open political debate. Every Jan. 1, thousands march to demand more democracy — the sort of protest that ordinarily would not be tolerated in the rest of China.
But residents don’t necessarily compare their situation to that of other mainlanders. They also notice how democratic Taiwan (which is independent in all but name) has become in recent years — not to mention the gains made in the rest of the world. Many chafe at the limits imposed on them.
Protests erupted as soon as the new electoral plan was unveiled, and activists disrupted a speech by a central government official. The president of the student union at the Chinese University of Hong Kong called for a student strike. The chief opposition group, Occupy Central, threatens to bring a sit-in to the city’s financial district and block major roadways.
But Beijing faces a bigger problem than protests and disruption. Its plan has to be approved by the city’s legislative council, where pro-democracy members have enough votes to veto it.
That decision would have the paradoxical result of leaving in place the status quo — which assigns the choice of chief executive to a 1,200-member committee that is known for its deference to Beijing. But democracy advocates think it would be folly to quietly settle for something less than the "universal suffrage" Hong Kong was promised.
The central government obviously fears that genuine democracy in one place could generate demands for it in the rest of the country. But reneging on promises of self-government has its risks as well. Most people in Hong Kong have little use for Occupy Central and have accepted rule by Beijing with little complaint. If the Chinese government stands by its decision to deny voters the opportunity to choose their own leader — or uses harsh tactics against protesters — public sentiment could turn.
Over 17 years, Beijing has managed to walk a tightrope between respecting Hong Kong’s unique freedom and maintaining its control. Right now, the high wire looks pretty slippery.
Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories? Please use the form below and let us know.
Having problems with the form?Contact Us Directly
Prejudice in the court
Keystone XL was never about Canada
It's time to talk about loss of memory
Terminal sedation not an answer
Putin’s enemies end up dead
Winnipeg at the tipping point
French museum holds Inuit skeletons
What Health Canada doesn't say about cellphones
NDP and its morning- after hangover
Yemen’s crisis opens new al-Qaida threat
China’s crackdown on academia
Violence rises in cash-strapped Palestine
Jeb Bush’s pathetic grasp of history
Keystone veto: Slo-mo Kabuki theatre
Airbag recall reveals weak law
Party elites select a premier? There's got to be a better way
Rosy economic news undermines Oswald, Ashton
Win, lose, Selinger a no-go
NDP on homestretch
Supreme Court’s assisted-suicide decision a perversion of human rights
Walmart wage increase act of brilliance
Dancing with the enemy unlikely
Canada must embrace Muslim minority
Chiefs' lobby group out of bounds
Ontario’s useless carbon tax
It's time to create a First Nations regiment
Hitler, Orwell and ISIS
You say you want a revolution
China confronts terrorism
Winnipeg must look inward to thrive
China targets Japan
Canada, U.S. must target climate
Ukraine needs weapons
Youth vote can turf Tories this year
Welcome to Winnipeg, Vince Li
Oswald misfires in 'reign of terror' allegations
Electric car won’t save the environment
Ontario’s ‘carbon tax’ distraction
Hungary’s Viktator takes hard turn