The late Szeto Wah, one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party, famously said, “The democrats must remain in the wilderness for a long time.” On the surface, Mr. Szeto seemed to mean that the opposition should not join the government for some short-lived, insignificant benefits or, even worse, out of the wishful thinking that they could one day be in government. However, considering Mr. Szeto’s thorough knowledge about the CCP, what he said must have contained a hidden message, which, when contrasted with today’s Hong Kong, might become clearer in meaning. The message might be this: true, the opposition should adhere to principles and strive for justice, but it cannot go head-to-head with the CCP, let alone developing to such a point that the CCP feels its totalitarian power is being threatened, so much so that it equates resistance with an attempt to usurp the CCP. Otherwise, the consequences could be unimaginable. It goes without saying that the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement has been developing in a way divergent from his expectations since his death.

The new generation of the resistance movement has a different paradigm. Direct action is emphasized, so is the refusal to compromise. It is marked by the courage to breach the rules and “rather be ashes than dust”. Lamentably, amid the new international situation, the CCP leadership leads a paranoid existence and cannot tolerate dissident views. It has a tendency to make a mountain out of a molehill, and is absolutely ruthless in dealing with dissident views. Under such circumstances, Beijing is determined to completely weed out and exterminate the opposition in Hong Kong. The National People’s Congress’s so-called decision to perfect Hong Kong’s electoral system the other day was an important piece of this jigsaw.

At its core, the entire “decision” is about further shrinking the ability of public opinion to determine the allocation of seats in Legislative Council elections, strengthening political screening, and expanding Beijing’s direct control over Chief Executive elections. From any angle, this is a retrograde step for democracy. The meaning of democratic elections is to give citizens a bigger voice and influence in the allocation of public power so as to manifest the principle of political fairness. Changing the electoral system so that the Legislative Council, where half of the seats are originally returned by direct elections, becomes where the majority of seats are either returned through elections in the functional constituencies (which have narrow electorate bases) or occupied by those chosen by the Election Committee, is a retrograde arrangement that expands the privileges of the powers that be and restricts public opinion. The imposition of even more political censorship of candidates, which makes it even more difficult for citizens to participate in elections, is also a definite violation of the democratic principle of open participation.

This new electoral system will make it extremely difficult for the opposition to obtain public power through elections. It will always be possible for the CCP’s political censorship mechanism to find so-called evidence to deprive a democrat of their candidacy. Even if the pan-democrats are able to find some political amateurs who appear to have a “clean sheet” to participate in the elections, it is questionable whether these people will have enough popularity and competitiveness to trump their adversaries from the pro-establishment camp. The more severe test, however, lies in whether those in the same pro-democracy camp will agree with fielding candidates anymore.

It can be expected that many hardliners will believe that elections have become completely meaningless. Participating in those elections will only promote the legitimacy of a system that is unfair and unjust. Objectively, it will be like “holding a candle to the Devil”, and the insistence on running will be a betrayal not only to their original intentions but also to their allies. This kind of infighting within the pan-democratic camp is exactly what those in power love to hear and see. It will make the majority of citizens, who are already disillusioned by elections, become even more indifferent to them. This plays into the hands of the CCP. Whether or not we can extricate ourselves from this conundrum of internal and external troubles will hold the key to the survival of the democratic movement.

But what Beijing really wants to crack down on is all of Hong Kong’s autonomous forces. These are forces whose existence is not reliant on Beijing’s support or favor. They have their independent social foundations and resources for their specific development and operations. For Beijing, an independent room for survival means that the CCP’s ability to exercise control is impaired or even threatened. The opposition, which has public opinion on its side, is naturally the CCP’s number one enemy. But Hong Kong’s big business, which is economically independent and inextricably linked to the global economic network outside China, also worries the CCP.

For the CCP, the alarm was already sounded during the 2012 election. Beijing had clearly expressed support for Leung Chun-ying, but in the end, he was just narrowly elected, winning a slim majority in a small circle vote by the Election Committee. In other words, many electors did not follow the instructions of the central government, and it was the local business sector that raised the most suspicion. In 2017, Carrie Lam was elected by just 777 votes. No doubt the votes clinched by John Tsang mostly came from the democrats. However, his interactions with the local business community during his campaign also made the CCP uneasy.

Back in 2014, the “831 Decision” made by China’s National People’s Congress stipulated that a person could formally become a candidate only by gaining the support of more than half of the Election Committee members. The proposal was actually targeted at the business community. At that time, the pan-democrats did not even have the ability to obtain just one-third of the support of Election Committee members. It was simply unnecessary to guard against them with such a high threshold (more than half of Election Committee members’ support). What Beijing was worried about was that the business community would use the pan-democrats to increase its bargaining power. Therefore, the NPC’s decision to “perfect the electoral system” this time is also aimed at diluting the political influence of the business community. The business sector’s role as the “kingmaker” and its ability to influence the overall situation is gone forever.

But the business sector cannot blame anyone, can it? Over the past 40 years, the business community has never supported the democratic development of Hong Kong. Before the handover in 1997, local capitalists were the only force that was capable of striving for a more open and democratic political system from Beijing. But they joined hands with Beijing to suppress democracy. After the handover, they made no real efforts to maintain their political influence. Hong Kong has never had a political party truly led by its big business. The super-rich remains accustomed to enjoying political free lunches, thinking that they can maintain their privileges and status by making direct phone calls to the top echelons of the CCP and getting in through the back door. They do not seem to understand that if they want to continue to develop their businesses and maintain the operations of free markets, they must ensure that Hong Kong’s judicial system, freedom of speech, procedural justice, and institutional rationality are fully protected. Only when pan-democratic parties and civil society have been completely dismantled do they realize that the above-mentioned institutional firewalls will also be gone and understand their symbiotic relationship. Lamentably, now they can only wallow in regret, and they have only themselves to blame for their predicament today.

(Ray Yep Kin-man is a political scholar in Hong Kong.)

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play