Hong Kong's legislative elections last week were an exceptional example of democratic elections under an authoritarian government. Although the democratic camp won 60 percent of the direct vote, they did not gain a majority, only 25 of the 60 seats. It has therefore been portrayed by the international media as a defeat for the democratic camp and a great victory for Beijing's rule over Hong Kong. Meanwhile, officials in China's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office happily declared that it was the most democratic election in the history of the territory.
Pinning their hopes on the effects of their demonstrations, the democratic camp said before the elections that their goal was to gain a majority with 31 seats and use the Legislative Council as a counter-balance to Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (
A close look at the proportional representation system, however, shows that if democrats wanted to gain a majority in the legislature, they would have to win 24 seats or more in the direct elections, or 80 percent of the vote. This is almost impossible in a democratic election, and probably only occurs when a communist party elects its secretary-general.
The political actions of Hong Kong democrats are thus based on unrealistic vote calculations. Although there have been calls for tactical voting, attempting to mobilize huge numbers of voters in order to bring about the democratization of Hong Kong is naive and leaves Beijing with much room to maneuver.
Clearly, Hong Kong democracy lacks a fair electoral system capable of truly reflecting public opinion. Public participation in the election, which resulted in a record voter turnout of 55 percent, nonetheless ended in heavy defeat. Even if the democratic camp had won a majority, the "Administrative Control" written into Hong Kong's Basic Law makes the Legislative Council little more than a consultative institution. Furthermore, the National People's Congress dismissed the notion of real, meaningful democracy in Hong Kong back in April.
This may explain why many mild-mannered, middle class democratic legislators failed to get re-elected, while the bold and outspoken popular former radio host Albert Cheng (鄭經翰) and "Longhair" Leung Kwok-hung (梁國雄) together received more votes than the Liberal Party -- the second largest party with 10 seats. In contrast to the tears of the top leaders of the Democratic Party, "Longhair" protested against election oversights outside the Special Administrative Region (SAR) government as soon as he was elected.
This brings our thoughts to Taiwan and the period prior to the first legislative election. Although there had been elections for some legislative seats, they were too few, and there was no effective counterweight to old-guard politicians. The opposition movement has never won a majority, and has therefore clashed with the establishment, by focusing on the struggle to implement a democratic system. The purpose of elections is not just to collect votes, but rather to function as a link to social movements and liberate the voice of public opinion to challenge authority.
Returning to Hong Kong, the latest election has left it at a crossroads. The unfair electoral system has belittled the will of the majority and turned the mainstream into losers. This is the result of lazy public representatives. The responsibility of every politician is to promote the wishes of the public. This is the only way to save democracy in Hong Kong.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow at the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy at the Academia Sinica.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
RSS