Many people, few votes

China and Hong Kong

Dec 8th 2005 HONG KONG
From The Economist print edition

The Special Administrative Region requests democracy

IF CHINESE leaders had been in any doubt about Hong Kong's hopes for democracy, a protest march by tens of thousands of the territory's citizens on December 4th will have set them right. The huge demonstration was also a deep embarrassment for the territory's new chief executive, Donald Tsang, who has tried to cajole Hong Kong's democrats into accepting only vague assurances that fully democratic elections will one day be held. But despite the demands, neither Mr Tsang nor the Chinese government is likely to make big concessions.

The protesters marched peacefully through central Hong Kong to the government's headquarters. Although the turnout was smaller than that for Hong Kong's two biggest political demonstrations in recent years, on July 1st 2003 and July 1st 2004, it was larger than organisers had predicted—possibly more than 100,000 (though the organisers claimed 250,000). In an unprecedented gesture by a top establishment figure, a former head of the civil service, Anson Chan, once Mr Tsang's boss, briefly marched with them.

Unlike the other large protests since 2003, which were fuelled partly by grievances over the economy and dislike of Mr Tsang's predecessor, Tung Chee-hwa, this latest demonstration appeared more focused on demands for political reform. It was aimed at pressing for a timetable for the introduction of fully democratic elections for the post of chief executive and for the territory's quasi-parliament, the Legislative Council. At present the chief executive is chosen by an 800-strong election committee whose members are largely sympathetic to China's views. Only half of the 60 legislators are chosen by direct elections. A majority almost invariably sides with the government.

But the votes of the 25 pro-democracy legislators will be critical on December 21st, when the council is due to vote on a package of limited political reforms proposed by the government. Any change in electoral procedure requires approval by at least two-thirds of the council's members. The pro-democracy camp has threatened to vote against the measures unless a timetable is announced for the introduction of universal suffrage. China announced in April last year that universal suffrage would not be allowed for the next chief executive elections (due in 2007) and the next Legislative Council polls in 2008. But Hong Kong's post-colonial constitution, promulgated by China, speaks of universal suffrage as an ultimate goal.

In a televised appeal last week, Mr Tsang gave warning that failure to adopt his proposals would mean progress toward reform in 2007 and 2008 would “come to a halt” (this awkwardly delivered intervention annoyed many and apparently helped boost support for the march). But the turnout on December 4th has strengthened the democratic camp's determination to push for a clear timetable.

Mr Tsang said after the protest that he would see what he could do to “perfect” the package, but he had “little scope” to change it. It is widely believed that the government might agree to limit the role of government-appointed members of district councils (bodies that help supervise public services) in choosing members of the election committee and the legislature, which is to be given an extra ten seats, only half of them directly elected.

Hong Kong's South China Morning Post, the territory's biggest English-language newspaper, has reported that China is considering an attempt to win over the democrats by hinting at the possibility of full democracy by 2017. But China is highly unlikely to make any firm commitment.

If the package is voted down, Mr Tsang is unlikely to find himself threatened by the same political turbulence that ensued from the demonstration on July 1st 2003. The scale of that protest was much more of a shock to Chinese and Hong Kong leaders than was the turnout on Sunday. This latest protest could even be seen as a tacit acceptance by democrats of China's refusal to allow universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008. Not long ago they were demanding fully democratic elections at the next opportunity. Now they are simply pushing for a timetable.

But Mr Tsang will remain deeply uneasy. Mrs Chan's participation in the demonstration has fuelled speculation that she might run against him in 2007. Mrs Chan is hugely popular. She says she does not have political ambitions, “at least at this stage”, and that she is “not out to make things difficult” for the Hong Kong or Chinese governments. But she does not explicitly rule out a bid for chief executive.

From local elections held in Taiwan on the day before the Hong Kong demonstration, China might conclude that democracy can sometimes work in its favour. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which China despises because it shuns reunification between the island and China, suffered a heavy defeat. The DPP won only six out of the 23 mayoral and county magistrate posts contested. Parties more sympathetic to China won the rest.

Meanwhile, comfortingly for China, as well as for Mr Tsang, there appears to be little appetite in Hong Kong for sustained, let alone violent, protests that could threaten the territory's recent recovery from its prolonged economic malaise. China's leaders should now be clearer what Hong Kong wants, but also of the limits to which it is prepared to go to get it.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.