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
U-Pass moves city toward sustainable frontier
Winnipeg's budget, recycled
Report card on Bowman shows work is needed
Interpretation of law yields comic results
Interpretation of law yields comic results
Bombing Yemen likely to backfire
Filmon appointment consistent with tradition
Nigeria’s choice of devils
Weak deal with Iran better than no deal
Abolition by stealth
Shortchanging special needs
Wealth inequality born in the land
Give Easter bunny a break
Squeezing Alberta’s youth
Is our democracy on crutches?
Spence’s shooting stars
The deadly, human factor
The law is failing the world's women
U.S. must withhold aid from Egypt
Aboriginal activists working to rock the vote
From sick care to health care
Searching for Steve Jobs
Monica Lewinsky and the price of shame
Urban combat in Iraq: No place for amateurs
Yemen descends into war
Manitobans should get out of their cars
Haiti’s tenuous hold on progress
Cruz sowing seeds of division
Campaign for modernized medicare
Expropriation hearings a sham?
Too much work for a cuppa joe
Singapore’s Lee an Asian Third Way
Obama forgets Iranians in nuke deal
West’s paralysis on Ukraine putty in Putin’s hands
Canada on flimsy ground to bomb Syria
Airports are sparkplugs not toll booths