While Hong Kong does technically hold elections every five years to choose a new Chief Executive, only the 1,200 member Executive Committee actually elects the new leader. As such pro-democratic supporters have been calling for universal suffrage to be implemented, but pro-Beijing leaders in the Executive Committee have been using delay tactics to prolong and prevent the prospects of a truly democratic system of electing leaders. The year 2014 proved to be a turning point in Hong Kong history, as thousands of Hong Kongers took to the streets and protested a decision by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPSC), which put more restrictions on Hong Kong elections as the Chinese Communist Party had placed screening procedures on those who would stand in the upcoming elections.
HONG KONG’S BUMPY ROAD TO DEMOCRACY
The Basic Law of Hong Kong serves as its mini-constitution, and more importantly it outlined its special status as a Special Administritive Region (SAR) with a high degree of autonomy. Among the principles outlined in the Basic Law is the provision of a gradual roadmap towards democraticization. Articles 45 and 68 of the Basic Law cite universal suffrage as the “ultimate aim”.
One of the criticisms that Margaret Thatcher received after her premiership was the fact that the British government failed to get concrete promises from Beijing that it would respect Hong Kong’s desire for direct democratic rule. In 1992, the former Prime Minister had been questioned by the House of Lords over her government’s handling of negotiations to which she answered: "It is already agreed that half the members of the legislative council will be directly elected in the year 2003. That means that there could be universal suffrage by 2007, 10 years after the end of Britain's responsibility. It is not perfect perhaps, but it is a provision for steady and orderly progress towards full democratic elections".
Unfortunately for Thatcher the promise for half members of legislative council being directly elected by 2003 was never fulfilled. As a matter of fact, 2003 marked the first year in which major mass protests have filled the streets of Hong Kong due to the Chinese government’s encroachment of civil rights. In February of that year, the Hong Kong Legislative Council had proposed a bill, which would make it easier for the police to detain those who are suspected of treason against the Chinese state, or those who harbour unclassified Chinese state documents. The new law would have been in accordance to Article 23 of the Basic Law which stipulated that Hong Kong would enact laws that would prohibit acts of treason against the Central Government (Beijing). The proposals triggered mass protests on July 1 (the anniversary of the handover), and 500,000 people marched against the bill. The protests worked and the Legislative Council had decided to shelve it indefinitely. The protests became a signal for the then ruling Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) a pro-Beijing party. As such, in 2004 it had promised that it would strive towards universal suffrage in 2012.
BEIJING NO LONGER ACQUIESING HONG KONG’S DEMANDS
Back in 1997, the acquisition of Hong Kong proved to be economically valuable. As a major business hub and seaport, Hong Kong alone contributed to almost 20 per cent of Chinese GDP. Due to its economic value, the Chinese government felt that it wasn’t a smart move to try to suppress Hong Kong. One mustn’t forget that the handover was not a popular move in Hong Kong and that protests against Chinese rule were happening since 1997. As such, Beijing chose to tolerate Hong Kong’s unique civil liberties that are not present elsewhere in the country. Fast forward 23 years later, and China is now the second largest economy in the world, second only to the United States. Moreover, China is no longer as economically reliant on Hong Kong as it was in the past. While Hong Kong made up 18 per cent of China’s GDP in 1997, as of 2020 it only makes up 3 per cent of Beijing’s economic output. Even though Beijing never seriously made any effort towards universal suffrage in Hong Kong and would rely on the empty promises of its allies to acquiesce Hong Kongers, now it’s not even pretending to support universal suffrage.
THE SYSTEM RIGGED IN THE PRO-BEIJING CAMP’S FAVOUR
Ever since the handover, Hong Kong has been ruled by pro-Beijing lawmakers. The electoral system has always strived to keep the qualified electorate as small as possible, in order to ensure that elements loyal to the Chinese central government are elected.
Under the current electoral system, those who can vote must be over 18, a resident of Hong Kong (regardless of nationality) and a holder of a Hong Kong ID card. However, there’s a another catch, In order to vote, you have to be working in part of the four main sectors of Hong Kong. This greatly reduces the number of those who can vote in elections, moreover those who do vote don’t directly vote for the next leader. Rather, they vote for a 1,200 member Election Committee, who in turn vote for a new Chief Executive. The 2012 Chief Executive Election became symbolic of low number of individuals who actually choose the new leader, as the pro-Beijing Leung Chun-ying became the Chief Executive by securing only 689 votes. The runner-up, Henry Tang was also a pro-Beijing candidate who gained 285 votes. The only pan-democratic candidate, Albert Ho, only gained 76 votes. The number 689 became a popular protest slogan during the 2014 protests, mocking the small number of votes he gained and highlighting the small number of individuals who actually get to decide who the next leader is going to be.
BEIJING TIGHTENING ITS GRIP
The 2019 Extradition Bill triggered another wave of protests throughout last year. The annual July 1 protests broke the record for the highest protest turnout in Hong Kong history, as nearly 2 million inhabitants took to the streets. The last protest in Hong Kong that cam close to these numbers happened in 1989 as 1.5 million Hong Kongers showed solidarity with those protesting in Tiananmen Square. To put into context of how massive the protest was, the total population of Hong Kong is only 7 million, so that means almost 30 per cent of Hong Kong’s inhabitants joined the protest. The Hong Kong police responded violently to those protests; using tear gas, rubber bullets and batons. The unrest caused Carrie Lam, the current Chief Executive to abandon the extradition bill. However, this wasn’t the end of the story.
On June 30, 2020, the Hong Kong government finally passed a new national security law, something that it has been trying to do since 2003. The new law seems to be a direct response to the protests, as now those caught committing acts of “terrorism, or colluding with foreign forces” will face harsh prison sentences. The law also states that those who are caught vandalising public transport can be considered terrorists, and those tried as terrorists won’t be allowed to stand in elections. This might be a response to the last Legislative Council elections when many pro-democracy protest leaders won public office. The most concerning part of the law is that Beijing would establish a national security office in Hong Kong and that Beijing would have the power to interpret any laws passed in Hong Kong. The new law has also made it easier for Beijing to establish surveillance over Hong Kongers, as many Internet users are now reporting that police forces are monitoring online activity.
It seems now that the road for Hong Kong democracy has hit a massive stopgap. While many citizens have hoped that Western powers will step up its condemnation of Beijing, so far major powers have only been able to enforce sanctions and verbal warnings against China.
