On Hong Kong, part 2

I am glad no violence came to the students and protesters in Hong Kong today.

For many the concession (if you can call it that) made earlier today by C Y Leung was a ruse to buy off the majority, a delay tactic to diffuse the temper of the past few days roused by last weekend’s police brutality. According to one report, angered protesters attempted to charge the police barricade after the speech, and I don’t blame them, for C Y Leung offered nothing written in stones, and for Hong Kong this won’t be the first time a leader has come to them with nothing but “good intentions”.

I spoke to many in the past few days about Hong Kong, some people were in the know, while others confessed their ignorance, and no doubt many more felt I had abused their patience by spilling my guts on an unrest happening somewhere far far away.

It’s difficult to hold your voice when your heart is bolting.

For those who are unaware of the situation in Hong Kong, a protest is underway in the former British colony led by students against a recent decision by China for the upcoming 2017 election (akin to a general election in the UK) to be held under universal suffrage with the exception that the potential candidates are appointed by the central government in Beijing. The UK has previously relinquished its control over Hong Kong to China on the condition that certain democratic and human rights are to be upheld by China and were subsequently written into the Basic Law of Hong Kong.

One such right enshrined by the Basic Law is the contentious Article 45 which states:

“The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People’s Government.

The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.”

This article is ambiguous. Those protesting in Hong Kong have accused China for reneging on its promise for a full democratic election to take place in Hong Kong, while the Chinese party mouthpiece has stated that the approach adopted by the Chinese government is in accordance with the articles enshrined in the Basic Law and allows for gradual and orderly progress towards universal suffrage in a province which previously had only indirect and limited involvement in its executive selection. Both sides are right in their own right.

As I stated previously I do not wish to dwell on the technicalities of Article 45, as L said to me in a recent discussion on this subject, “Google is freely accessible.”

Instead I wish to offer a view on today, and my reflection on my attendance at the rally outside the Chinese embassy in London yesterday.

At the rally yesterday, I listened to many speakers, veterans of protests and spirited students, some spoke in Cantonese (unfortunately for me), some in English, some in Mandarin and some in all three, and many more chanted and sung. It was a positive atmosphere. Yet of all the people there, only one person spoke to me – he was a student, few years younger than myself and he spoke passionately and with alacrity, he spoke of freedom and democratic rights like many others, but he also spoke of thoughts that have weighed heavily on my mind that no one else touched upon, that the demonstration in Hong Kong cannot go on forever, that although democracy will not solve injustice and inequality but Hong Kong deserves accountability in its leaders, that the Scholarism movement must find what it is after.

He fell short of saying what it is that he thinks the movement should be after. I understand, the truth can be a downer sometimes.

As I discussed previously, I believe a compromise should be sought. I fully support the fight for democracy anywhere, and I am truly glad that the students of Hong Kong have stood up for what they believed in in such a civil and restraint manner. Those who say their efforts are wasted, I disagree – if no one acted my article today would not be on democratic rights, but on human rights.

And after days of struggle, the incumbent Chief Executive of Hong Kong offered for dialogue, minutes before the deadline for response set by the student leaders.

For me this is a victory for democracy, and for Hong Kong. At the heart of democracy lies the art of compromise, and though it is certain that the Chinese government will not offer full democratic rights to the citizens of Hong Kong, the mere fact that an authoritarian regime has agreed to give in to negotiation, however skeptical you may be of the negotiation itself, is a contradiction to the cornerstones of the said regime, and is almost unheard of when considered even in the context of many democracies today. The criticism that this concession is China’s solution for dissolution is valid, but as a supporter of democracy and dialogue I would always advocate for exchange of views before exchange of blows. Afterall isn’t that what democracy is, resolution by reason and consensus?

So, given this opportunity for talk, what must the student leaders seek? I would advise them the following:

1. Not to approach the negotiation with an absolute mindset, and not to draw a line between full democracy or nothing. While this may appear to be a step back in truth this is not, for I do not know a single country today that exercises what the Hong Kong protesters are asking for – a direct vote from the citizen to the executive. When I described the Chinese proposal in Hong Kong to S today she said that, “In France, our system is the same.” Indeed, even in the UK, the general election is an election of candidates vetted by parties. Sure you may stand as an independent but out of 647 members of parliament, only three are elected as independents. That is not to say I agree with the status quo nor am I in the illusion that the proposed Chinese system is the same as that of the current UK one, but rather to acknowledge the reality of today’s “democratic world” and the necessary, pragmatic tone that should be adopted at the negotiation table.
2. To demand that the right to demonstration, which is written in the Basic Law, to be upheld in all future confrontations and for no citizen to be harmed in the course of these demonstrations if no direct harm is brought to other citizens or the police. That no petty laws be applied to any citizen engaged in demonstration, and no citizen be threatened or censored for their expression of thoughts or belief.
3. To demand the immediate release of any citizen arrested in the recent protest.
4. To demand that China to uphold the ultimate aim of Article 45, that of a gradual and orderly progress towards universal suffrage for the people of Hong Kong, and that this process be completed before the expiration date of the 1984 agreement in 2047.
5. That upon the expiration date of the 1984 agreement, for China not to alter the existing constitution and fundamental values of Hong Kong as written in the Basic Law.
6. To demand that in the upcoming 2017 election, for the people of Hong Kong to acquire the right to veto candidates pre-selected by the Chinese government via consultations or a direct referendum. That no election for the Chief Executive to take place until at least three candidates have passed the dual selection process for China and Hong Kong. In this manner Article 45 may be satisfied, that the Chief Executive will be selected through elections, with elements of local consultations and central appointment.
7. To be allowed to appoint a delegation to be directly consulted with regard to the running of the 2017 election.

In exchange I would advocate for student leaders to concede the following:

1. To relinquish the demand for C Y Leung’s resignation. For me this is a difficult call for China to accept and would immediately spark a Chief Executive selection process which may not suit either side at present. In addition, the removal of one man does not equate to the removal of an ideology.
2. To withdraw the protest from central Hong Kong.
3. To allow amnesty for the Hong Kong police force engaged in the recent tear gas attack on the protesters.
4. To make a joint public statement with a representative of the Hong Kong government with respect to the above agreements.

I understand that to many the above may seem a capitulation of principles. Allow me to explain myself.

I have always in principle supported democracy, and I wish for genuine democracy to come to my country as I have often said that without democratisation, China faces revolution in my lifetime. Yet democracy is not like an IKEA furniture that comes flat packed with instructions to be assembled or disassembled at will, the recent attempt of western nations in Africa and the Middle East, and many historical examples of imposition of direct democracy, such as that of Athens during the Peloponnesian War, have more than convinced me that democracy is a gradual process. And for me, the best and most agreeable path for Hong Kong, and for all of China, is for true democracy to spread from Hong Kong to the mainland. If Hong Kong can make a compromised democracy a functioning and a routine aspect of the island’s political life, then this will be a beacon of hope for the rest of China, and will assuage Beijing’s irrational fear of true democratisation.

I hope that in the coming weeks, and with the announced involvement of Lord Patten, that a peaceful resolution may be found through his intermediation. That the Chinese government may for once throw out the idea of perception and “face”, replacing it with demand and authorisation that the Hong Kong government is to engage in meaningful dialogue with the student representatives; that the students, having won both moral and political grounds, to now exercise pragmatism to ensure the future of their parents, themselves and that of Hong Kong is safeguarded; and in the event of a breakdown, for people in Hong Kong and around the world, to rise up once again in support for the right to choose your own government, the right to hold leaders accountable for their actions, and the demand that the government should and must serve its people.