Let’s Talk
Democracy and Hong Kong’s Constitutional Reform
An Imaginary Dialogue between Two Hong Kong Citizens
|
In the Prologue, Visionary Kong points out that if a sufficient number of Hong Kong people make the same demand for a more democratic system, a qualitative change in the course of history may not be impossible. The task now is to engage the general public to deliberate on the Green Paper and issues pertinent to the ideas and practices of democracy so that a consensus on not procrastinating democratic reform can be achieved. |
Episode I
The Complexity of the Green Paper and How to Approach it
Pragmatist Hong: Analyzing the Green Paper?
Have you not noticed how complicated it is?
As Regina Ip, our former Security secretary once said, complicated issues are not for taxi-drivers and the likes of those serving in McDonald outlets!!
Visionary Kong: I don’t agree.
In a democratic society, the government is obligated to assist the public to understand its policies and blueprints since public policies impact on every resident. If the public has difficulty in understanding a policy consultation paper, the government has not done its job. It is the government’s fault, not ours.
Pragmatist Hong: Well, I agree, the government has not done its job. But what can we do now?
The Green Paper is very complicated. It puts forward a lot of different options. I am at a loss as to how to start to think about it.
Take the examples of having universal suffrage in 2012 or 2017 or thereafter and the size of the nomination committee being 800 or more or less. What are the implications of these different options? What should we consider if we want to compare the options? How can we choose among the options?
Visionary Kong: I think the first step in making sense of the Green Paper is to understand hat the options it provides are just possible “building blocks”, among many, of a social institution.
We cannot meaningfully compare and choose among possible “building blocks” without knowing the purpose of building such a social institution.
Let me give you an analogy. We cannot meaningfully compare and choose among different materials for making a container, such as glass or plastic or metal, without knowing what purpose you want the container for.
In the context of the Green Paper, the options it provides are presumably possible building blocks of a democratic system. We can only meaningfully compare and choose among the options by making reference to the purposes of building a democratic system.
The key question to deliberate is: Do the listed options help realize the values of democracy?
Of course, before this question can be answered, we need first of all to know:
1) What is democracy?
2) What are the essential institutions of democracy?
Pragmatist Hong: Chapter Two of the Green Paper lists four principles for designing our future universal suffrage model. Are these not reference points for designing our future political system, such that:
· the system must meet the interests of different sectors of society so as to preserve the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong;
· the system must facilitate the development of the capitalist economy so as to preserve the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong;
· the system must be instituted in a gradual and orderly manner so as to preserve the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong;
· the system must be appropriate to the actual situation of Hong Kong?
Visionary Kong: Not quite! I think there is a misuse of terminology.
The so-called “principles” are only “factors” that we are now told need to be taken account of when designing our future democratic system. The reference point or principle for designing our future political system IS democracy.
In this connection, strangely enough, the Green Paper seems to have presumed, without examination and elaboration, an antithesis between democracy and the listed factors and considerations.
To the extent that the “factors” are relevant, the proper question to address is whether democracy is likely in any way to be at odds with or work against the considerations behind those factors. Better still, if democracy can be shown to have neutral relations or even positive relations to such considerations, then worries can probably be alleviated.
Thus, the proper questions to address are:
· Does democracy, if so in what ways, meet the interests of different sectors of society so that the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong can be maintained?
· Does democracy, if so in what ways, facilitate the development of a capitalist economy?
· Does the pace of democratization, if so in what ways, affect the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong?
· What actual situations of Hong Kong, if any, are relevant to the implementation of democracy in Hong Kong?
Once again, however, before these questions can be answered, we need first of all to understand:
1) What is democracy?
2) What are the essential institutions of democracy?
To be continued….