Democracy in Action
Here's an interesting take on events in Hong Kong in which Steve Tang argues that the Chinese Communist Party's concept of democracy is one where elections and votes are permissible in certain circumstances, i.e. so long as any contest is carefully controlled and the result known in advance.
China is ready to kill the golden goose
By Steve Tsang - The Times
Beijing wouldn’t hesitate to crush the Hong Kong protests if it meant preventing democracy infecting the mainland
Hong Kong is the goose that lays the golden eggs for China. The ruling Communist party allows Britain’s former colony a degree of freedom denied to other parts of China because of its status as a financial centre. No less importantly, the families of many leading communists have luxurious properties and huge investments in Hong Kong. This is why the party has no wish to repeat the brutal military crackdown of Tiananmen Square in 1989.
I will not, however, rule it out. Killing the goose is costly and regrettable but the party believes China is now wealthy and powerful enough to forsake the golden eggs and withstand the international backlash that would follow. Beijing does not depend on Hong Kong in anything like the way it did in 1997. The prospect of western sanctions, like those imposed on Russia for its incursions into Ukraine, is not much of a deterrence.
A violent crackdown on the democracy protesters occupying much of central Hong Kong would be regarded by the party leadership as small price to pay if it prevented such dangerous ideas infecting the mainland and thus threatening their hold on power.
This is the harsh reality that makes the ultimate goal of the “umbrella revolution” unachievable, however noble it is. If the Chinese government reversed its decision to hand pick candidates for the election of Hong Kong’s chief executive, it knows it would set an ominous precedent throughout China.
We need to understand that the Chinese government is merely the front organisation of the Communist party and exists purely to protect its interests. It is tempting to see the ritual and rhetoric surrounding the party as a legacy with no substance, since present-day China, with its towering cities and technology, bears little resemblance to the orginal Communist state of the Cold War era. The reality is less reassuring.
For all the outward transformation of the past three decades, China’s political system has not changed fundamentally. The party has enhanced its capacity to consult and control public opinion but it remains a Leninist organisation dedicated to staying in power. In practical terms, this means the party will allow democratic elections so long as the results are approved by it beforehand.
To this entrenched mindset, allowing Hong Kong voters to elect their chief executive from a very short list of Beijing-approved candidates means that it has kept its promise to Britain before the 1997 handover to uphold local democratic traditions. It now sees the demands of protesters as unjustified, unreasonable and the result of an undefined western conspiracy.
The Communist party will pre-empt such a development. Hence, the Hong Kong drama being played out in the world’s media is tightly censored in China. Even Chinese tourists are not being allowed to flood to Hong Kong as they normally do in the “golden week” holiday of the Chinese National Day, lest they report what they see once they return home.
As long as the protests are contained in Hong Kong and aimed at the local authorities, Beijing can tolerate them. Should they start to spread to the mainland, it will trigger a different response.
Hong Kong has one of the world’s best-trained police forces, expert in crowd control and riots, and is — so far — a long way from from where Beijing needs to deploy the People’s Liberation Army to clear the streets. But the party’s political will to do so should not be doubted.
The Hong Kong government’s belated offer to open a dialogue with protesters should buy it valuable time. Public anger should ebb away once the threat of force to end the demonstration has been removed.
But be under no illusion. The talks will not result in Beijing’s decision about how the election should be conducted being reversed. A vague promise to discuss future polls is possible but little else.
Such an outcome should not be rejected by the activists as a failure of their “umbrella revolution’”. This description is colourful and catchy but it is misleading. Hong Kong is not in the midst of a revolution. It will not be allowed to have one. It is a civic movement by people who believe in human rights and democracy courageously defending the former and seeking to advance the latter.
Getting Beijing to let them achieve both will be worthy of being called a revolution. But full democracy remains a bridge too far for now. Having staged protests, forced the government to respect the right to demonstrate and take part in talks are big steps forward. However, gambling on the Communist party conceding real democracy to Hong Kong under pressure would be truly reckless.
Beijing wouldn’t hesitate to crush the Hong Kong protests if it meant preventing democracy infecting the mainland
Hong Kong is the goose that lays the golden eggs for China. The ruling Communist party allows Britain’s former colony a degree of freedom denied to other parts of China because of its status as a financial centre. No less importantly, the families of many leading communists have luxurious properties and huge investments in Hong Kong. This is why the party has no wish to repeat the brutal military crackdown of Tiananmen Square in 1989.
I will not, however, rule it out. Killing the goose is costly and regrettable but the party believes China is now wealthy and powerful enough to forsake the golden eggs and withstand the international backlash that would follow. Beijing does not depend on Hong Kong in anything like the way it did in 1997. The prospect of western sanctions, like those imposed on Russia for its incursions into Ukraine, is not much of a deterrence.
A violent crackdown on the democracy protesters occupying much of central Hong Kong would be regarded by the party leadership as small price to pay if it prevented such dangerous ideas infecting the mainland and thus threatening their hold on power.
This is the harsh reality that makes the ultimate goal of the “umbrella revolution” unachievable, however noble it is. If the Chinese government reversed its decision to hand pick candidates for the election of Hong Kong’s chief executive, it knows it would set an ominous precedent throughout China.
We need to understand that the Chinese government is merely the front organisation of the Communist party and exists purely to protect its interests. It is tempting to see the ritual and rhetoric surrounding the party as a legacy with no substance, since present-day China, with its towering cities and technology, bears little resemblance to the orginal Communist state of the Cold War era. The reality is less reassuring.
For all the outward transformation of the past three decades, China’s political system has not changed fundamentally. The party has enhanced its capacity to consult and control public opinion but it remains a Leninist organisation dedicated to staying in power. In practical terms, this means the party will allow democratic elections so long as the results are approved by it beforehand.
To this entrenched mindset, allowing Hong Kong voters to elect their chief executive from a very short list of Beijing-approved candidates means that it has kept its promise to Britain before the 1997 handover to uphold local democratic traditions. It now sees the demands of protesters as unjustified, unreasonable and the result of an undefined western conspiracy.
The Communist party will pre-empt such a development. Hence, the Hong Kong drama being played out in the world’s media is tightly censored in China. Even Chinese tourists are not being allowed to flood to Hong Kong as they normally do in the “golden week” holiday of the Chinese National Day, lest they report what they see once they return home.
As long as the protests are contained in Hong Kong and aimed at the local authorities, Beijing can tolerate them. Should they start to spread to the mainland, it will trigger a different response.
Hong Kong has one of the world’s best-trained police forces, expert in crowd control and riots, and is — so far — a long way from from where Beijing needs to deploy the People’s Liberation Army to clear the streets. But the party’s political will to do so should not be doubted.
The Hong Kong government’s belated offer to open a dialogue with protesters should buy it valuable time. Public anger should ebb away once the threat of force to end the demonstration has been removed.
But be under no illusion. The talks will not result in Beijing’s decision about how the election should be conducted being reversed. A vague promise to discuss future polls is possible but little else.
Such an outcome should not be rejected by the activists as a failure of their “umbrella revolution’”. This description is colourful and catchy but it is misleading. Hong Kong is not in the midst of a revolution. It will not be allowed to have one. It is a civic movement by people who believe in human rights and democracy courageously defending the former and seeking to advance the latter.
Getting Beijing to let them achieve both will be worthy of being called a revolution. But full democracy remains a bridge too far for now. Having staged protests, forced the government to respect the right to demonstrate and take part in talks are big steps forward. However, gambling on the Communist party conceding real democracy to Hong Kong under pressure would be truly reckless.
