PrologueEpisode IEpisode IIEpisode IIIEpisode IVEpisode VEpisode VI

Let’s Talk

Democracy and Hong Kong’s Constitutional Reform

 

An Imaginary Dialogue between Two Hong Kong Citizens

 

Episode II

On Democracy and Its Institutions

 

Pragmatist Hong:         Ai ya!! Democracy! What is democracy?! This question is no less complex than the Green Paper!

 

“Nearly everyone today professes to be a democrat.”[1]  The irony is that democracy has meant different things to different people, hasn’t it? Despots sometimes claim to be democrats too. “Authoritarian leaders sometimes claim that their regime is really a special type of ‘democracy’ that is superior to other sorts. For example, V.I. Lenin once asserted: ‘Proletarian democracy is a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy; Soviet government is a million times more democratic than the most democratic bourgeois republic.’”[2]  

 

In our context, the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong also uses the term “democratic” in their name, though I suspect few people take their commitment to democracy seriously.

 

Even in the academia, as far as I know, there are considerable disagreements on the meaning and definition of democracy.

 

Visionary Kong:           Well, that everyone in the real world of politics should find it advantageous to profess to be a democrat can perhaps be seen as a blessing for democracy – it perhaps indicates that democracy has become such a universal value that no one dares to deny it, at least not openly! “Democracy bestows an aura of legitimacy on modern political life: laws, rules and policies appear justified when they are ‘democratic’.”[3]

 

Regarding the disagreements on the meaning and definition of democracy in the academia, I think the observation of Prof David Beetham, founding Director of the Centre for Democratization Studies at the University of Leeds is particularly insightful. He says: “[T]he extent and significance of such disagreements has been greatly exaggerated. Most of the disagreements turn out on closer inspection to be not about the meaning of democracy, but about its desirability or practicability: about how far democracy is desirable, or about how it can be most effectively or sustainably realized in practice. Such disputes are entirely proper, but it is misleading to present them as disputes about the meaning of democracy itself.”[4]

 

On what democracy is, Beetham says: “If we examine the main currents of theorizing about democracy from the ancient Greek onwards; if we pay attention to what those claiming to struggle for democracy have been struggling for; in particular, if we notice what the opponents of democracy throughout the ages have objected about it: then a relatively clear and consistent set of ideas emerges.”[5]

 

According to Beetham, democracy[6]

1)       belongs to the sphere of collective decision-making – decisions of a collectivity, be it a group, an association, or society;

2)       embodies the ideal that such collective decision-making should be subject to the control of all members of a collectivity considered as equals.

 

Based on such an understanding, democracy entails two related principles:

1)       popular control over collective decision-making;

2)       equality of rights in the exercise of that control – this equality of rights has also been termed as “political equality”.

 

As Anne Phillips explains: “The first principle of popular control is intrinsic to any notion of democracy. A system is not regarded as democratic just because it proclaims itself as pursuing the needs or interests of the people, for democracy always implies that the people themselves take some part in determining political decisions. Democracy is not paternalism; it is not only government ‘for the people’ but government ‘by the people’ as well. Democracies have varied enormously in the mechanisms through which people get to exercise this influence or control---just as democracies have varied enormously over who gets included in ‘the people’--- but no conceivable definition could omit some element of popular control.”[7]

 

As for political equality, Phillips points out that this principle has become “particularly definitive in the development of modern democracy, for, while the roughly equal capacity for reason is more a matter of faith than of empirical confirmation….[t]he burden of proof …[has shifted] to those who want to argue for exceptions….[People] do not differ much over the equal rights of those now recognized as citizens, or the equal weighting that should be given to each….Whatever else we disagree on…political equality between adults has come to set the terms for modern democracy.”[8]

 

These two principles inform the building of the institutions of a democracy.

 

In fact, based on these principles, a democracy audit has been set up in the UK to evaluate the state of democracy of the UK. The audit was set up by the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex in collaboration with the Charter 88 Trust. David Beetham is a key participant in the audit project. The audit instrument has also been adopted to audit the state of democracy of other countries. The two principles are taken as the benchmark against which to evaluate the state of democracy. No system can claim to be democratic if it does not recognize the legitimacy of these two principles.

 

Pragmatist Hong:         Your definition…I mean, Beetham’s definition of democracy sounds so neat and tidy! Its neatness and tidiness seem so out of proportion to the complexity of the institutions of democracy that I have heard about! I don’t know how to relate the two principles to real world political systems.

 

I can only imagine their application in a small association: in a small association, members can control collective decision-making through direct participation and through equal rights to vote on regulations and policies in person.

 

But in a large society, I must say the two principles sound so empty that I doubt if they can be of much use in providing guidance for building democracy!

 

Can you tell me how to operationalize these two principles? We live in a city of several million, how can each of us meaningfully control or “participate” in the decision-making of the government?

 

Visionary Kong:           Indeed, that is why a large-scale polity requires a complex set of institutions and practices to enable its political system to operate democratically. Let me point out that the two principles of popular control and political equality allow us to logically deduce a set of conditions or institutions of a fully functioning democracy.

 

The institutions that enable us to exercise our rights in controlling and participating in decision-making of the government include:[9]

 

       free and fair elections

       We indirectly exercise our control over, and participate in, the decision-making of the government by selecting its head and the legislature.

       We also exercise our control by dismissing them in subsequent elections; in fact, this control is the most fundamental in that we will totally lose our control over the elected officials if, once elected, they remain in office for life! It has also to be noted that we will lose a substantial degree of control over our elected officials if the interval between elections is too distant.

       The extent of control and participation through elections depends on

·         the reach of the electoral process – “that is, which public offices are open to election, and what powers they have over non-elected officials”[10]; if the number of public offices open to election is limited, then our control over the government is accordingly limited;

·         the inclusiveness of the electoral process – “what exclusions apply, both formally and informally, to parties, candidates and voters, whether in respect of registration or voting itself”[11];

·         the fairness of the electoral process as “between parties, candidates and voters, and the range of effective choice it offers the latter”[12];

·         the “independence of the electoral process from the government of the day.”[13]

       The equality of rights in exercising the control depends on

·         “how far each vote is of equal value”[14];

·         “how far there is equality of opportunity to stand for public office, regardless of which section of society a person comes from”[15].

 

       open and accountable government

       This is what we need to be able to exercise control over the government between elections;

       Open government is essential to democracy, because we are unable to monitor the government or make an informed electoral choice unless there is accurate information available about the activities of the government and the consequences of its policies.

       Open government has four main aspects:

·         “the provision by the government itself of factual information about its policies”[16];

·         “the access of individuals and the press to government documents”[17];

·         “the opening of meetings to the public and the press; this can typically range from parliament and its committees to the proceedings of publicly funded agencies”[18];

·         “the systematic consultation by the government of relevant interests in the formulation and implementation of policy, and the publication of the information and advice so received”[19].

       The most effective means for securing open government is freedom of information legislation. The best model legislation is provided by Sweden and the USA.

       By accountable government, I mean the government is to be held accountable to

·         the courts “for ensuring that all state personnel, elected and non-elected, act within the laws and powers approved by the legislature”; here lies the basic meaning of the “rule of law”; this dimension of accountability may be termed “legal accountability”;

·         the legislature and the public, i.e. the government is required to justify its policies, their prioritization and their manner of execution to the legislature and the public; this dimension of accountability may be termed “political accountability”.

 

       a regime of civil and political rights

       These rights are essential to participation in political activity

       Take, for example, the rights to liberty and security of the person, “without protection from arbitrary arrest, detention, banishment or expulsion, the individual cannot with security participate in political debate or action.”[20]

       Similar arguments can be made for the right to due process – i.e. the need to protect the citizen from unfair accusation, ill-treatment or torture and a biased trial; “to prosecute political enemies is commonplace in societies that reject democracy.”[21]

       Likewise, freedom of thought, conscience, expression, and of the media is all essential if citizens’ participation in policy debate is to be meaningful

       It must be emphasized that freedom of the media is of unique importance; the media constitute alternative sources of information independent of the government, which are important for understanding public issues and scrutinizing the government.

       Of course, freedom of assembly and association is no less important; imagine what will happen if we are not allowed to come together to discuss public affairs, to form trade unions or other associations – our ability to press our interests with the government will be severely handicapped!

 

       civil society

       “The idea of civil society as a necessary component of democracy is one that has become particularly emphasized as a result of the twentieth-century experience of fascist and communist dictatorships, both of which sought to incorporate and supervise all social institutions under the aegis of the state.”[22]

       Negatively, the idea of civil society means that “the reach of the state should be limited, so that it is prevented from controlling all social activity, penetrating all spheres of life, or absorbing all social initiative and talent.”[23]

       Positively, it means that there are “many independent foci of self-organization within society, through which people can work collectively to solve their own problems, which can act as channels of popular opinion and pressure upon government, and which can serve as a protection against its encroachment.”[24]

       Only when there exist independent social associations and life “can the power of the state be limited, can public opinion be articulated from below rather than managed from above, and can society achieve the self-confidence to resist arbitrary rule.”[25]

 

I hope this listing of the institutions of democracy has not caused you headache. In fact, we hear of them pretty much and are not unfamiliar with them, are we? What I have done is to expound on them as they relate specifically to the two core principles of popular control and political equality.

 

Among the institutions I just mentioned, it is self-evident that “free and fair elections” are the most fundamental. Effective control over government is impossible without “free and fair elections”. As a Chinese slogan of Alan Leong during his race for Chief Executive proclaimed: One is boss only when one has choice! On the other hand, open and accountable government, a regime of civil and political rights, and civil society enhance our control over government. No polity can be described as democratic without “free and fair elections”.

 

To be continued….