| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立暨南國際大學 === 公共行政與政策學系 === 96 === Title of Thesis: Urgent Push, Slow Progress: Hong Kong’s Democratic Path Before and After the Reversion
Name of Institute: Department of Public Policy and Administration Pages: 383
Graduation Time: 12/2007 Degree Conferred: Master of Arts
Name of Student: Yau Wai Kwok Advisor Name: Byron S. J. Weng
Abstract
The Year 2007 marks the tenth anniversary of Hong Kong’s reversion. It is also a pivotal year of Hong Kong’s democratic development. The Chief Executive Donald Tsang issued the “Green Paper on the Development of Political System” which aims to implement “double popular elections,” i.e., the systems of electing the Chief Executive and the Members of the Legislative Council by direct popular votes. Such moves may result in the reaffirmation of the legitimacy of the SAR Government, the recovery of CE’s ability to function as an effective coordinator, and to respond effective to social demands. Political long standing political differences may be brought within manageable level and a Hong Kong “society of harmony” may then be constructed.
In terms of Dankwart Rustow’s theory of democratic transition, supplemented with structural and historical analytical point of views, it is to be seen that both Britain and China saw it fit not to change Hong Kong’s political system – an enlightened colonial system that is free but not democratic – for a good long time. This is so because Hong Kong, by virtue of its role as a free port, an intermediary facing the world but backed by China, has experienced long economic growth which also benefited both Britain and China before 1997. Status quo was favored.
As 1997 approached, the problem of democratization also emerged in Hong Kong. In this democratization process, through changing stages, various elite groups competed incessantly trying to prevail. But it was not able to free itself from the China element and there was international interference.
In 1984, the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed and the British Hong Kong government began to prepare for a “glorious retreat.” Hong Kong then went through three stages of development. (1) Glorious Retreat 1991-1997, (2) Destruction and Reconstruction 1997-2003, and (3) Orderly Progress 2003-2007. In terms of democratic transition, there have been two waves of progress and one set back.
In 1998, after the “June 4th” Tiananmen Incident, the last British Governor Chris Patten introduced the 1992 Constitutional Reform, by far the most extensive democratization in Hong Kong history, which was partly meant to paved the way for a glorious retreat for Britain. But it ended with China’s decision to “build a separate stove” in 1997.
After the reversion, China went ahead to “tear down and rebuild” the Hong Kong government structure in accordance with the Basic Law which prescribed a kind of “bird cage democracy.” Beijing also caused the SAR Government to attempt to enact a National Security Law in accordance with Article 23 of the Basic Law. This after Hong Kong had just gone through an economic depression, the Asian financial crisis, and the SARS crisis. The inept government of Tung Chee-wah only added to popular discontent. Several “interpretations” of the Basic Law provisions by the Standing Committee of the National People’ s Congress also raised serious objections from the educated Hong Kong public. There was, in fact, a democratic set back during this period. The end shot was a massive demonstration on July 1, 2003 against the Article 23 legislation attempt and the SAR Government was forced to swallow the bitter pill of defeat.
The pan-Democratic forces successfully turned the July 1 demonstration into an appeal for the implementation of the “double popular elections.” As this appeal has since become a Hong Kong consensus, Hong Kong’s democratization can be said to have entered the stage of “orderly progress.”
Thanks partly to China’s CEPA and “Free Going” tourism policies, Hong Kong economy recovered and has become strong. CE Donald Tsang’s “Fifth Report of the Constitutional Development Task Force” commenced the second progressive wave of democratization in Hong Kong. His follow up reports and efforts to reform District Board elections and appointment systems are helping to build a better system within the Basic Law framework. Of course, international elements and China’s developments have also been influencing Hong Kong options as well as her democratic development.
By the Rustow scheme, we may say, first, that Hong Kong’ democratic transition has not developed lineally as suggested by his theory, since it had a serious set back. Second, Rustow’s “background” condition, i.e., national unity, was extant, but it was not apparent and was not a key foundation in the Hong Kong case. The reason lies in China rather than in Hong Kong. Third, Hong Kong is not yet in Rustow’s “habituation phase”. Hong Kong was in the “preparatory phase” between 1984 and 2002 and entered the “decision phase” probably in 2003, spearheaded by the CE’s Green Paper on the Development of Political System. But as of 2007, it is still not ready to implement a democratic system in earnest, largely because the forces of resistance, internal and external, are still formidable.
Key Words: Rustow’s Transition to Democracy Theory, Democratization, “one country, two systems,” 1992 Constitutional Reform, July 1 Demonstration, “double universal suffrage,” Green Paper on Constitutional Development,” “harmonious society”.
|
|---|
