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 IV

On Balanced Participation and Majority Rule

 

Pragmatist Hong:            Yes, I know. You always get excited and get carried away when talking about democracy! Thank you very much for elaborating on the justifications of democracy.

 

What confuse me are in fact comments on democracy by the local tycoon Peter Woo Kong-ching, Chairman of Wharf (Holdings), and our Green Paper.

 

Mr. Peter Woo some time ago commented that “[t]he introduction of elections of chief executive and all seats of Legco through universal suffrage amounts to abolition of the business sector’s rights to participate in politics.” He demanded “balanced participation in politics without introducing universal suffrage”.[i]

 

The Green Paper, as we discussed before, also requires that our future political system must be conducive to balanced participation of all sectors and groups of society so that their interests can be met. (paras 2.11 & 2.12, my italics)

 

It seems that both Peter Woo and the Green Paper interpret democracy to inevitably deprive someone’s rights in political participation as well as harm their interests.

 

But having heard you, how could it be? Democracy is by definition political equality and equal consideration for the interests of all in collective decision-making! Correct?

 

Visionary Kong:              Bingo!

 

Why take Peter Woo’s comment so seriously? His is only the view of one person, and a businessman’s for that matter. He may be good at doing business and making money but this need not entail critical thinking or good knowledge of other aspects of society.

 

As for the Green Paper, I must say there is a lot to be desired in the work of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau and in particular, of Secretary Stephen Lam.

 

Pragmatist Hong:            Of course, I am not taking seriously Woo’s comment per se. But he has political influence, you know?

 

For the Bureau, the Hong Kong Government is increasingly noted for being “anti-intellect”. I don’t expect too much from them. The sad thing is the Government is the decision-maker!

 

So, I must take them seriously.

 

Could you provide me with bullets to shoot back?

 

What problems are there in their understanding? What are their concerns?

 

Visionary Kong:              I think their major concern is the tyranny of the majority.

 

Pragmatist Hong:            I see! Majority tyranny!

 

They are worried that through majority rule, the majority – the “proletariat” – could pass legislation that contains nasty effects for the minority – the “bourgeoisie”!

 

But is this worry not legitimate? Is the tyranny of the majority just an illusion?

 

It is very logical that majority rule can allow the majority to do harms to the minority, isn’t it?

 

It seems that democracy has serious defects, at least in this regard, doesn’t it? There is inherent conflict or tension between majority rule and democracy. Any policy making is bound to inflict some harm on some persons. So, majority decision rule inevitably hurts someone and does not give equal consideration to the interests of each citizen in collective decision-making! It appears that majority rule is not really democratic, is it?

 

Is not supermajority or unanimity rule more democratic? Should we limit the reach of the democratic process under certain circumstances? You and I may under certain circumstances belong to the minority and harmed by the majority! Who can guarantee? I think we need some sort of protection again majority tyranny!

 

Visionary Kong:              Well …. ! This understanding of the relationship between democracy and majority rule is too superficial.

 

Pragmatist Hong:            In what way? Can you explain?

 

Visionary Kong:              It must be made clear that democratic decision-making has two different dimensions: deliberation and voting.

 

It has to be emphasized that voting by majority rule or other decision rule only represents the end stage of the whole decision-making process. The deliberation dimension is far more important!

 

Political equality has different requirements in these two dimensions.

 

Deliberation is where citizens’ beliefs and convictions are formed, changed, elaborated, and given full articulation. This is the process wherein citizens learn about their interests and the interests of others, persuade each other of the legitimacy of their own interests, amend the understanding of their interests in light of the interests of others, accommodate the interests of others, resolve their differences, reach consensus and agreement etc.

 

Political equality demands that all citizens’ viewpoints and interests be heard and given due consideration in such deliberation.

 

So Peter Woo need not worry that his interests will not be given due consideration? This is guaranteed by the democracy process?!

 

Mind you, compared to street-level people, who are less articulate, less organized, and less effective in mobilizing public opinion, given the resources Peter Woo possesses, I believe his interests will only receive “more than equal” consideration in the deliberation process!

 

His voice already appears in the media from time to time. Do you think ours will receive the same treatment?

 

Coming back to our discussion regarding democratic process. It is only when consensus or agreement is not possible that voting is used to make a definite decision on the issue concerned. Given that consensus is not always possible while disagreement is inevitable in any society, voting is thus an integral component of any democratic decision-making process.

 

Now, I want to argue that majority rule perhaps is the only decision rule consistent with the value of political equality.[ii]

 

 

Pragmatist Hong:            Really?! I am keen to learn about this! I always thought that supermajority or unanimity rule was more democratic.

 

Visionary Kong:              The essence of majority rule is that it ensures an equal distribution of voting power among voters in controlling the outcome of the decision-making process.[iii] This is because

1.            majority rule is anonymous – meaning that the rule does not favor one voter over another[iv]

2.            majority rule is neutral with respect to alternatives – i.e. it does not favor or disfavor one alternative policy more than another.[v]

 

Let us consider an example.[vi] For instance, there are five people in a group and they need to decide whether to endorse a new policy x. If policy x is rejected, the result will be the status quo.

 

Majority rule requires that for policy x to be endorsed, at least three people must vote for it. If only two people vote for it, the status quo will be retained.

 

Now compare this with a rule that requires more than a majority to pass policy x, say, unanimity rule.

 

Unanimity requires that for policy x to be accepted, everyone must support it. So unanimity rule in effect requires that

1.        policy x receives everyone’s vote in order to be adopted

2.        the status quo need receive just one person’s vote for it to obtain; in other words, one person’s choice will be imposed on the majority. (as you may recall, majority rule requires that the status quo receives three persons’ support in order for it to be retained)

 

The upshot is that those who oppose policy x and favor the status quo are given much more power by the decision rule than those who support policy x.

 

The decision rule is biased in favor of the option of the status quo and those who support the status quo. It is in this sense that such a decision rule is not neutral with respect to alternatives and is not anonymous.

 

In fact, any decision rule requiring more than a majority is minority rule – the minority being in a position to impose its will on the majority.

 

The protection of the majority against the tyranny of the minority is no less important than the protection of the minority against the tyranny of the majority!

 

Pragmatist Hong:            Well received! But you have not eased the concern that majorities can in fact hurt the interests of minorities. I don’t think your analysis has given much comfort to Peter Woo.

 

Visionary Kong:              OK. Let me put it this way:

-             What kind of interest do you have in mind that is superior to the democratic process?

-             What interests can justifiably be claimed to be inviolable by the democratic process?[vii]

-             What interests are so important or fundamental that, in order to protect such interests, you would rather choose to give up the democratic process?

-             What imaginable interests of an individual’s, say Peter Woo’s, can be so important and fundamental that they can trump the value of political equality or the principle of equal consideration of interests?

 

Pragmatist Hong:            Nmm…m…m…

 

Visionary Kong:              Are you worried that through the democratic process, the majority may deprive the minority of some political and civil rights, such as the rights to liberty and security of the person and freedom of thought, conscience, expression, etc.?

 

Is that what you have in mind?

 

Pragmatist Hong:            Ehh…h…h… sort of …. but I am not sure.

 

Visionary Kong:              If this is your worry or Peter Woo’s worry, let me remind you and Woo that these rights are an integral part of democracy.[viii]

 

Do you recall that a regime of political and civil rights is one of the important institutions for achieving democracy? The constitution of a democracy should properly protect such a regime.

 

If a group in a political system was deprived of some political and civil rights, then such a political system cannot be described as democratic. If, in a democracy, the majority, through the democratic process, passes a law that encroaches upon the political and civil rights of some minority groups, such a law must be unconstitutional or unlawful. In this case, the majority is destroying democracy!

 

If a democracy does not have an effective mechanism to protect the political and civil rights of its people or denies some groups of such rights, then such a democracy is defective.

 

Thus, if you are worried that your political and civil rights may be infringed, what you need to do is to strengthen the institutions of democracy, not to deny democracy.

 

You don’t count on an authoritarian regime to protect your political and civil rights, do you?

 

Pragmatist Hong:            Nmm…m…m… Yes, you have your point. But I just wonder if there are some other important interests that …….?

 

 

Visionary Kong:              Take your time and think hard. What other important interests can you think of that could possibly claim priority over the democratic process?

 

Pragmatist Hong:            Nmm…m…m…

 

Visionary Kong:              Now, you see!

 

Pragmatist Hong:            See what?! I don’t understand what you mean!

 

Visionary Kong:              You have been trying very hard to think of some very important interests, right? But it seems you have difficulty in articulating these, don’t you?

 

Pragmatist Hong:            Yes, I admit. So …?

 

Visionary Kong:              My point is that it is not possible to define clearly a priori what our interests are, except for some fundamental ones, like those usually protected by a bill of rights.

 

An individual’s interests are highly varied and complex. A person is most likely to have multiple interests at the same point in time; the interests are likely to be of varying importance to the individual and may even cross-cut one another. It is most important therefore to beware that our interests are issue contingent – our interests change with the nature and range of issues under consideration.

 

On any public policy or public issue, we are most likely to be able to discover and define our interests through public deliberation. Mind you, not all of our interests are legitimate. The legitimacy of our interests has to be established and accepted by others. Again, we can only do this through public deliberation and persuasion.

 

In this regard, when compared to non-democratic processes, the democratic process is superior in protecting and advancing everyone’s interests. This is because “the democratic process endows citizens with an extensive array of rights, liberties, and resources sufficient to permit them to participate fully, as equal citizens, in the making of all the collective decisions”.[ix]

 

In a nutshell, democracy ensures that everyone’s viewpoints and interests will be given due consideration in the decision making process.

 

I think no other decision making process can do this!

 

Having said all these, I think “[i]t is quite natural for A to feel that all his most deeply cherished interests and goals should be inviolable. And for B to make a similar claim. And C … Members of a highly privileged group are likely to claim that their interests surely ought to be inviolable, particularly since, in their view, their interests coincide with the interests of the society as a whole. Not surprisingly, therefore, property rights are often asserted to be prior or superior to the democratic process. Members of a disadvantaged group may also lay claim to a superior interest that ought to be advanced by other means if the democratic process fails to do so.”[x]

 

And, “it is highly advantageous to any group to succeed in putting its interests beyond the reach of collective decisions or failing that, within the reach of a body of decisionmakers who are beyond the reach of the democratic process.”[xi]

 

“But, given the extensive range of rights, interests, goods, and protections built into the democratic process, how can we reasonably justify going beyond the reach of that process?”[xii]

 

I think the burden is on Mr Peter Woo to persuade us why his interests or business interests should have priority over the democratic process and the interests of yours and mine!

 

I also want to advise Secretary Stephen Lam that democracy is the best means to achieve “balanced participation”. No public consultation is needed. It is well-established in theories of democracy.