HK - the cry for democracy.

It is heartening to read the polling results. Some say it was a de facto referendum. The voice of the HK people is finally registered and heard.

At this juncture, it is tempting to say that the democracy’s bugle has been sounded with this report: -

“Pro-democracy politicians won 388 of the 452 district council seats in Sunday’s district elections, compared with 59 for the pro-establishment camp. The remaining five seats went to independents.”

Carrie Lam said that her government will listen to the views of the public with an open mind and reflect. ”There are many analyses and interpretations which say the results reflect the public’s dissatisfaction with the current state of things and the deep-seated problems in society,” Carrie said. 

Well, I can’t say that she is wrong about that public’s dissatisfaction part. Six months of nationwide protests, resulting in untold damages with 4,400 people arrested, one police shooting and another elderly man being set aflame, calling it “public’s dissatisfaction“ is already putting it mildly and discreetly.

Yet, will the district council poll make any difference? Will Beijing relent? Will the government give in to the five demands of the HK protestors? Will the “one country, two systems” be adapted to “two countries, two systems”? 

Well, I can’t also say that Beijing didn’t see this coming. If HK election (to choose her city’s leader after Carrie’s term ends in 2022) is anything like the coming 2020 American elections, or our local election possibly next year, you can rest assured that HK’s parliament will be flooded with pro-democracy leaders (instead of pro-establishment, pro-Beijing ones). 

But democracy in HK is like a snake with her fangs pulled out. You must know that the 388 (pro-democracy) district councillors have no say (or little say) in government policies. The results may be a repudiation of Carrie Lam’s administration, but it doesn’t come close to repudiating Beijing’s agenda of claiming HK as her own. 

At best, the district councillors hold some influence over the make-up of an election committee that chooses HK’s leader. But you need to know the proportions. 

Out of the 1200-member election committee, with the power to select HK’s next leader in 2022, only about 117 of them are district councillors. That’s not going to shift the goalpost for HK democracy. 

Symbolically, it was a resounding win. And although one should never underestimate the power of symbolism and mythologies in politics, the ironclad grip of the Chinese establishment and the way they have tweaked the system are such that this battle between the people and the government will go on for a longer period than expected. 

Foreign Minister Wang Yi has already made it clear that “Hong Kong is a part of China no matter what happens.” 

Even though Taiwan is eagerly watching the development in HK, asserting that “the election fully demonstrates Hong Kong people’s absolute will to pursue freedom and democracy”, China is digging in her heels with a return serve, claiming that “China’s central government resolutely supports Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s leadership of the Special Administrative Region government.”

So, never the twain shall meet then. And this is bad for the country. Her wounds will only bleed even more.

Lesson? Mm...

Well, there is nothing much to say here. The one-country-two-systems has resulted in one country under endless siege and the two systems helplessly split with one side clamouring for freedom, equality and reforms and the other side making it clear that she will never give in or give up to enforce and assert her sovereignty at all costs. 

This can only end up with a Mexican standoff, with one side fighting to the other side’s demise. 

If I may wax political philosophy here, I am tempted to say that Rousseau was right when he said that democracy is a form of government suited only to gods, not mere mortals. 

In fact, democracy was never fully endorsed in Athens, her birthplace. It was quite chaotically implemented with so much flaws that it looked more like the government of privileged aristocrats than the common folks. 

As David Runciman astutely observes: - 

“The problem was that democracy pandered to desire. It gave people what they wanted day to day, but it did nothing to make sure they wanted the right things. It had no capacity for wisdom, for difficult decisions, or for hard truths. Democracies were founded on flattery and lies. Democratic politicians told the people what they wanted to believe, not what they needed to hear. As Plato put it, they took their failings and dressed them up as though they were virtues.”

Yet, say what you like, there is no system of government that the people idolises more than democracy. It is like a spouse in an occasionally abusive marital union. But the scars and wounds over the decades do not cause the victim to leave the union. 

Somehow, the democratic ideal of participatory government cannot be faulted, yet, admittedly, its application leaves much to be desired. 

And while democracy may result in populist overspill that causes a demagogue to be elected like Trump, Putin or even Kim, its redeeming quality is that it gives enduring hope to the people that they still have some control over who leads, or ironically, who lords over them.

This hope may be delusional at times, but in some cases, it is a matter of degree depending on the ethical standing and benevolence of the elected leader. 

And you can rest assured that there will always be a struggle of monolithic proportions when it comes to a democratic uprising like the one experiencing in HK, because it is about the monopoly of power. 

The one who holds it will never trust the ones who want it back. And because the ones who want it back have lost complete trust in the one who holds it, this power struggle is the main cause of an often bloody rebellion or transition that can lasts for years. 

So, in the end, democracy is all that the people have to give them a sense of participation, stewardship and control over those who lead them. But, as the late political guru Samuel Huntington said: “Men may have order without liberty, but they cannot have liberty without order. Authority has to exist before it can be limited.”

And it is hope that on both sides of the HK divide, they will understand this basic principle of government. That is, on the government side, what is the use of order when freedom is wanting. And on the people side, what is the use of freedom when order is lacking.

Alas, the right balance of the two is what I wish for HK now, more than ever.