On May 24, the people of Hong Kong will vote in an
historic election. They will select representatives to a new
Legislative Council for the Special Administrative Region (SAR) of
Hong Kong. Not only will this be the first election in Hong Kong
since China regained sovereignty over the former British colony
last July, but it also will be the first legislative election in
the history of the People's Republic of China in which even a
fraction of legislators is directly elected by the people.
The
election itself, then, is a step forward in putting democratization
in Hong Kong back on track, a process that was halted abruptly when
Beijing imposed an unelected provisional legislature on Hong
Kong.
Democracy in Hong Kong is important to the
United States for several reasons:
-
First, if democracy
withers on the vine in Hong Kong, then hope for the spread of
greater political freedom and democracy throughout the rest of the
People's Republic is lost.
-
Second, Hong Kong's
progress toward democracy is a measure of Beijing's commitment to
live up to pledges made in international agreements. Beijing
committed to continuing Hong Kong's transition to democracy in the
1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.
-
Third, the more
democracy progresses in Hong Kong, the easier it will be for the
United States to sustain and improve U.S.-China cooperation in
addressing economic and security concerns--ranging from legal
protection of property to counternarcotics efforts.
For
U.S. policymakers, the election will serve as a measure by which
they can evaluate the health of democracy in Hong Kong, the nature
of Hong Kong's relationship with Beijing, and China's respect for
its obligations under international agreements. After the election,
the United States should continue to press the governments in
Beijing and Hong Kong to uphold their legal and stated commitments
to democratization, and hold them accountable for real
progress.
To
protect the important American interests at stake in Hong Kong, and
to promote the expansion of democracy and preservation of freedom,
the United States should:
-
Hold China to the
promises it made to the people of Hong Kong in the 1984
Sino-British Joint Declaration;
-
Meet with the elected
Legislative Council members and other democracy advocates while on
official travel to Hong Kong; and
-
Speak out on the
importance of freedom, in all its forms, to global peace and
prosperity.
The Transition to Democracy
Until 1985, members of Hong Kong's
Legislative Council (LegCo) received executive appointment. They
served as an advisory body for the colonial governor and had no
power to introduce legislation or overturn acts of the executive.
The British began implementing Hong Kong's transition to democracy
after signing the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, which
outlined the terms by which Britain would cede sovereignty over
Hong Kong to China.
The
British colonial government began by gradually introducing
democratic reforms into Hong Kong's legislature. Whereas the
governor of Hong Kong used to appoint representatives to LegCo from
different occupational sectors (such as medicine, law, and
business), beginning in 1985 these representatives were elected by
professionals from these "functional" constituencies. It was not
until 1991 that any part of the legislature was elected directly
through geographically defined
constituencies.
The
transition to democracy was gradual and limited. London and Beijing
agreed in the 1984 Joint Declaration that the legislature of the
Hong Kong SAR would be constituted by elections. In addition,
Beijing stated in Article 68 of the 1990 Basic Law (Hong Kong's
quasi-constitution) that its "ultimate aim is the election of all
members of the Legislative Council (LegCo) by universal suffrage."
Article 45 of the Basic Law similarly states that "the ultimate aim
is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage."
Despite this lofty objective, however, the
process outlined in the Basic Law merely stipulated phasing out--by
the year 2007--the ten legislative seats that were elected
indirectly through an election committee, leaving half of the
legislature indirectly elected through functional constituencies,
and included no plan for the direct popular election of the very
powerful chief executive.
This
limited transition to democracy was progressing, on track and free
of controversy, until the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, which
raised serious concerns about Beijing's tolerance for the basic
liberties that the people of Hong Kong took for granted. Many
wondered who would protect civil liberties and represent popular
interests after the 1997 handover, when Hong Kong would be governed
by an appointed chief executive and an indirectly elected
legislature.
Governor Patten's Reforms
Governor Chris Patten was the first Hong
Kong governor to begin his tour of duty after the fallout from the
1989 turmoil, and the last governor of Hong Kong before the
handover. Governor Patten's predecessors struck several unpublished
gentleman's agreements with Beijing, in which they committed to
going slow on democratization in exchange for assurances from
Beijing that the modest democratic gains in Hong Kong would not be
lost after the change of sovereignty. In the aftermath of the
Tiananmen massacre, however, Patten was sent to Hong Kong with a
mandate from London, as well as from the Hong Kong people, to
accelerate the democratization process.
In
June 1994, following 17 rounds of unsuccessful talks between
Britain and China, and despite Beijing's strong objections, the
Legislative Council approved Governor Patten's proposals to lower
the voting age, open all LegCo seats to election, and increase
significantly the number of voters selecting LegCo seats through
indirect elections. But Beijing considered Hong Kong's new election
law to be inconsistent with the 1990 Basic Law, and vowed to
disband the council on July 1, 1997.
The Provisional Legislature's Revised
Election Procedures
True
to its word, Beijing replaced the Legislative Council that was
elected democratically in 1995 with an appointed provisional
legislature that would sit until elections could be held for the
new LegCo in 1998. This placed Hong Kong's democratic transition in
limbo for an entire year.
The
concerns surrounding the upcoming election have roots in the
questionable legitimacy of the provisional legislature and the
nature of the changes it made in Hong Kong's election law. Since
the provisional legislature was not constituted by elections and
was not even mentioned in the Basic Law, it has remained in a
shroud of controversy since its inception. Adding to this
controversy, the newly appointed chief executive, C. H. Tung, gave
the unelected body the authority to enact revised electoral
procedures in order to undo the "damage" caused by Patten's reforms
and allegedly to restore Hong Kong to the "gradual and orderly"
democratization process outlined in the Basic Law.
The
provisional legislature passed its revised election law on
September 28, 1997, and set the date for the upcoming elections.
Critics charge that the new election guidelines limit the
democratic franchise in Hong Kong and are deliberately aimed at
restricting the number of democracy advocates in the legislature.
To evaluate the basis for these charges, a basic knowledge of the
changes made in the election law is needed.
First, the 1998 Legislative Council is to
be created by the direct election of 20 geographic seats and by the
indirect election of 30 functional and 10 election committee seats.
By 2004, the SAR government plans to increase the number of
directly elected seats and phase out all of the election committee
seats, leaving half of the legislature elected by geographic
constituencies and half by functional constituencies. Although the
distribution of constituency seats in the new LegCo will be the
same as it was in 1995, significant changes were made in voting
procedures.
The
provisional legislature changed the number of voters who are
allowed to elect representatives from the functional constituencies
and the election committee. In the end, only one-third of the new
LegCo will be elected directly by the full voting population of 2.8
million; the remaining two-thirds of the legislature will be
elected indirectly by a mere 140,000 voters who are eligible to
cast a second ballot--over a million fewer than under the previous
election law, and only 5 percent of the total number of eligible
voters. In 1995, half of Hong Kong's electorate were eligible to
cast a second ballot for a functional constituency or election
committee representative.
Because of these changes, election
watchers around the world are interested in two aspects of the
election on May 24: voter turnout and the final party line results.
Voter turnout could be depressed by the fact that only 5 percent of
voters have a say in who will fill two-thirds of the seats in the
legislature. The new procedures may produce a legislature that
includes many fewer advocates of democratization than the 1995
legislature held.
The
three constituencies, and how they are determined, are as
follows:
-
Geographic Constituencies
In 1995, Hong Kong was divided into 20 geographic voting
districts, each returning a single representative to the
legislature. Every registered voter was eligible to cast a vote in
his geographic constituency, and the candidate receiving the most
votes won the seat. In 1998, every registered voter remains
eligible to cast a ballot in his geographic constituency, but Hong
Kong will be divided into five geographic voting districts instead
of 20, and the seats within each district will be distributed to
candidates on party lists according to the proportion of the vote
each party receives. Advocates of this form of proportional
representation claim that this system will return a legislature
that reflects the preferences of the electorate more accurately.
But it is unclear how this system can possibly fulfill a promised
equitable distribution of seats, because two-thirds of the
legislature will have been elected indirectly by the other
constituency groups.
-
Functional Constituencies
In 1995, more than 1.1 million (out of 2.6 million)
eligible voters cast a second ballot (in addition to their
geographic constituency) to elect a representative in their
functional constituency. This was an improvement over 1991, when
only 69,000 voters were eligible to vote for functional
constituency representatives. Since half of the legislature's 60
seats were allotted to functional constituencies, Governor Patten
sought to make LegCo more representative of the voting population
by vastly expanding the number of eligible voters in these
constituencies. The current guidelines, however, return to the
exclusive nature of the functional constituency franchise, with
only 139,000 voters eligible to cast a second ballot in 1998.
-
Election Committee
In 1995, 283 directly elected local government officials
representing their constituents voted to fill the ten election
committee seats. In 1998, a complex procedure was put in place to
select an 800-member election committee which would in turn elect
the ten election committee seats. In 1995, every registered Hong
Kong voter was eligible to vote for the local officials who would
represent them on the election committee. In 1998, however, only a
small subsection of the electorate was eligible to participate in
the selection of the election committee several weeks ahead of the
general election. The complexity of the new procedures and their
similarity to the functional constituency procedures confused many
of the 23 percent of eligible voters who participated in the
selection of the election committee in April 1998.
The New Legislative Council
Under Hong Kong's executive-led political
structure, the legislature and administration are not coequal
branches of government. The Legislative Council is charged with
enacting laws, controlling public expenditures, and monitoring the
performance of the government by forwarding questions on matters of
public interest. But these powers are limited by Article 74 of the
1990 Basic Law, which prohibits LegCo from introducing bills that
involve "public expenditure or political structure or the operation
of the government." Legislators can introduce other bills only with
the consent of the chief executive. These powers were granted to
the legislature only recently.
Although few predictions can be made about
how the new council will work to achieve democratic reforms,
observers are somewhat wary because the council will have been
elected under a law that was revised by the new SAR government and
passed by the unelected provisional legislature. The controversy
surrounding the provisional legislature and the new election law
has its origins in the standoff between Beijing and London over the
pace of democratization in the former British colony before the
transfer of sovereignty to China. The fruit of this standoff--the
new election law--complicates an already complex election process
and may produce a LegCo that is less representative of the Hong
Kong people than the council elected under British rule in
1995.
Most
analysts expect the upcoming election to be carried out in strict
accordance with the law, but many in Hong Kong and abroad charge
that the revised election procedures passed into law by the
provisional legislature are flawed. They suggest that the
procedures themselves may threaten Hong Kong's path to
democracy.
Implications for Hong Kong and the
U.S.
The
Democratic Party of Hong Kong has expressed concern that these
electoral changes will result in a Legislative Council that is
dominated by commercial interests. Since commercial interests in
Hong Kong depend on access to China's market, some fear that
important rights and freedoms in Hong Kong might be compromised in
order to placate Beijing.
The
leader of the Democratic Party, Martin Lee, has charged that the
procedural changes are aimed at limiting the representation of
pro-democracy forces in the legislature. If the Democrats receive
the same proportion of the popular vote as they received in 1995
and end up holding many fewer seats, the outcome will appear to
support their claim. However, if they again receive the same
proportion of the popular vote and the number of seats they end up
holding remains similar to the number they held in 1995, their
criticism will lose its credibility.
For
example, although some polls project that the Democrats and their
allies will receive just under half of the popular vote, they are
expected to secure only 15 to 20 seats, or only one-quarter to
one-third of the legislature. In 1995, they received a similar
proportion of the popular vote and won 25 seats--nearly half of the
legislature.
In
addition to concerns over the progress of democratization, the
United States has other important interests at stake in Hong Kong.
First among them is protecting the rights and property of the now
more than 50,000 U.S. citizens and 1,200 American companies
currently in Hong Kong. The United States also seeks the continued
cooperation of the Hong Kong government in the fight against
illegal drugs, illegal immigration, commercial piracy, and money
laundering. But perhaps more relevant to the upcoming election, it
has an interest in holding Beijing to its commitments made in the
Joint Declaration.
How
Beijing honors its international agreements and continues
democratization in Hong Kong is a key indicator of what kind of
global power China will become in the future. Beijing's role in the
establishment of the provisional legislature, which passed the
revised election procedures, was not reassuring to those who want
Beijing to hold to agreements to respect Hong Kong's autonomy and
allow for democratic progress.
To
protect and promote U.S. interests in Hong Kong, and to promote the
expansion of democracy and freedom, policymakers from the United
States should:
-
Hold China to the promises it
made to the people of Hong Kong in the 1984 Sino-British Joint
Declaration. China promised to allow the people of Hong
Kong to rule the SAR with a high degree of autonomy in all areas
except defense and foreign affairs. Such autonomy is critical not
only to the preservation of democracy and economic freedom in Hong
Kong, but also to the promotion of U.S. interests in fighting drug
trafficking, money laundering, the smuggling of aliens, and
commercial piracy.
-
Meet with elected Legislative
Council members and other democracy advocates while on official
travel to Hong Kong. U.S. leaders would add credibility to
their claims of concern for democracy and reinforce Hong Kong's
momentum toward democracy by meeting with pro-democracy
advocates.
-
Speak out on the importance of
freedom, in all its forms, to global peace and prosperity.
Economic, political, and social freedoms are necessary for
societies to be competitive and secure in this modern era. Freedom
of the press, assembly, and enterprise are as conducive to
entrepreneurship as they are to human rights. U.S. leaders should
emphasize that Hong Kong-style economic freedom and rule of law,
rather than state planning or crony capitalism, are keys to
prosperity and stability. This message should be conveyed in Hong
Kong, in China, and throughout Asia.
Conclusion
While many aspects of the new election
procedures raise concerns about Hong Kong's path toward full
democracy with universal suffrage, the election is only one
part--albeit an important part--of Hong Kong's transition. After
May 24, Martin Lee and the Democratic Party will take their seats
in a legislature dominated by pro-business interests that is also
part of a government dominated by a strong executive.
On
the surface, such a legislature is not very different from the one
that existed just before the handover. Yet the situation today is
vastly different. Hong Kong is now a part of the People's Republic
of China. And although the momentum in Hong Kong's march toward
democratization was halted when a provisional legislature was
imposed, the May election will be an important first step toward
regaining that momentum in the future.
Much
work lies ahead for Hong Kong's leaders to guide the Special
Administrative Region of Hong Kong toward a free, prosperous, and
secure future, and the people of Hong Kong will be better served by
the return of limited democracy in the May 24 elections.
Stephen J. Yates is a former China Policy
Analyst for the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage
Foundation.