“Democratization without mainlandization” has become a new catch-all political discourse in Hong Kong, galvanizing a broad coalition of opposition parties to work on a common platform against Beijing-supported candidates in the Legislative Council by-elections on Sunday.
The by-elections were held on the same day Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) consolidated his absolute leadership by eliminating presidential term limits.
The timing might be coincidental, but the low voter turnout shattered the opposition parties’ plan to turn the by-elections into a de facto referendum on China’s growing authoritarian rule in the territory.
Many Hong Kongers stayed home and boycotted the controversial by-elections, and the outcome points to three new trends in local politics.
First, Hong Kongers have been utterly disappointed with the structural hypocrisy of an autocratic system that discriminates against competent candidates who uphold democratic localism.
The entire electoral setup and process was deeply flawed, unfair and shameful for Hong Kong, which was once proudly committed to the rule of law and good government on Chinese soil.
From the beginning, the by-elections were tainted by the Hong Kong government’s screening process that disqualified liberal candidates because of their refusal to show allegiance to the Chinese communist state.
This institutional censorship not only betrayed the principle of self-autonomy within the constitutional framework of “one country, two systems,” but also revealed China’s fear of a highly unpredictable electoral outcome.
Beijing strove to undermine the territory’s democratic forces. It rallied popular support for top-down autocratic governance, and pressured the Hong Kong authorities to crack down on pro-independence activists and former leaders of the “Umbrella movement.”
During the by-election, Beijing’s local agents carried out digital electoral mobilization, using fake personas to organize supporters, misleading elderly voters and attacking opponents. Some communist officials from neighboring Guangdong and Fujian provinces even traveled to Hong Kong to campaign for pro-Beijing candidates.
Another effective meddling tactic was a systematic scheme to launch cyberattacks on pro-democracy and pro-independence activists, which illustrates how quickly the use of social media has become a serious political battleground in Hong Kong.
While the global media lamented the Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election, China has implemented these manipulative tactics in Hong Kong, confusing the electorate to obtain desirable political outcomes. Rather than liberalizing Hong Kong’s post-colonial system, China has intensified efforts to maintain control and rule the territory in a coercive manner.
Second, political indifference and resistance to an unpopular regime are typical tactics used by Hong Kongers to cope with dramatic changes, good or bad.
Angered by China’s blatant interference in the territory’s domestic affairs, some courageous Hong Kongers have adopted a proactive strategy of resistance that is direct and blunt: They favor candidates with localist ideologies and reject anyone supporting Beijing’s nationalistic agenda.
This is still the successful electoral strategy for pro-democracy and pro-independence groups, because they identify themselves with ordinary voters and seize the moral high ground against pro-Beijing politicians.
Third, the future of Hong Kong is closely intertwined with that of China. The latest constitutional amendment cleared the way for Xi to govern for life, although no one could tell how many Chinese actually favor a predictable dictatorship over a relatively free and open system.
Knowing the territory would probably live under decades of Xi’s rule, some Hong Kongers sent a clear message to Beijing that they refused to succumb to the authoritarian impulses of a single-man, single-party regime.
Democratization is always a long and painful process, and its success hinges on embracing civic, political and religious organizations, and empowering civil society to nurture democratic norms and lifestyles. This has certainly been true for Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong.
During the 1980s and 1990s, Taiwanese and South Koreans made tremendous sacrifices while fighting for freedom and democracy. Their commitment to non-violent activism enabled their nations to achieve a peaceful transfer of power and liberalize their governance structure.
Following in Taiwan’s and South Korea’s footsteps, Hong Kongers are consolidating their resistance and defending their fundamental rights. They are determined to reap the fruits of their political struggle.
Joseph Tse-Hei Lee is professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS