On a rainy day seven years ago, 156 years of British colonial rule in Hong Kong came to an end. With promises and slogans such as "one country, two systems," "Hong Kongers administering Hong Kong" and a "high-degree autonomy," the territory was handed back to China.
Beijing wished to achieve three goals through the handover. First, to use Hong Kong's economic value; second, to further its goal of national unification and third to use Hong Kong as an example for Taiwan.
Hong Kong's democratic transformation is especially unique and worthy of concern from the aspect of comparative politics. As a former British colony -- unlike other colonies after World War II, it was unable to obtain independent sovereignty and turn itself into a new country through the process of decolonialization and sovereignty handover. Due to Hong Kong's status of being decolonized but not becoming independent, its democratization was destined to be decided mostly by Britain and China (which now claims sovereignty over the territory). As a result, this top-down process is constantly delaying Hong Kong's democratization.
There are two factors that continue to delay democracy in Hong Kong. First, external forces (either the British or the Chinese governments) have the power to carry out Hong Kong's democratization. The territory's transformation from colonial authoritarianism to a representative system has been significantly affected by both the People's Republic of China and Britain. Both the Britain and China have dominated the loosening and tightening of political opportunities in Hong Kong's transformation. Local democratic forces have limited influence and can muster only passive responses most of the time.
Second, the progress of transformation is slowed due to internal pressure. Hong Kong's powerful political and business forces, along with a largely apathetic middle class which is uninterested in politics are both disadvantageous to democratic development. Further, the territory's conservative political elite stubbornly resist the implementation of political accountability, saying it may damage economic competitiveness, turn the territory into a welfare state, or fail due to the lack of popular participation. And, although the middle class supports the direct elections for the chief executive and lawmakers, they are reluctant to pay a price when taking action.
On April 26, China's National People's Congress officially denied Hong Kongers the right to directly electing their chief executive and lawmakers in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Thus, the limited democracy in the territory has not improved after decolonialization.
The people of Taiwan, on the other hand, should be glad for the freedom and democracy they have obtained within less than 20 years after the government lifted martial law in 1987. However, Taiwanese society faces constitutional disorder, as many people refuse to recognize the legitimacy of national leaders. The Taiwanese are also severely divided along political persuasions. The situation in this country is much more serious and dangerous than in Hong Kong.
Many Hong Kongers have strived to safeguard their existing freedoms while pursuing democratization. The Taiwanese people should show their support for such efforts. This also serves as an opportunity for Taiwan to cherish and reevaluate its own democratic achievements. The people of Taiwan and Hong Kong both deserve a more robust democratic society.
Jackson Yeh is a student at the Graduate Institute of Sociology at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
RSS