Hong Kong Party Politics

This paper describes the political challenges that the Hong Kong government faces in terms of electoral reforms. It has faced significant political challenges since the top legislative committee of Beijing proposed that a nominating commission nominate at least two candidates for the office of Hong Kong's chief executive, and subsequently voters chose one of them. This idea did, in fact, result in an excessively hot temperature in Hong Kong, which shows no indications of abating. It also resulted in the emergence of radical groups, which caused widespread property destruction in the city during protests for election reform. This paper notes that the political parties in Hong Kong are still less-developed thus cannot serve as a primary institution, which bridges the gap existing between the civil society and the state, assumes the role of aggregating interests and attracts and trains political skills. It also reports that the political parties have not been institutionalized though the British government initiated political reforms that would play a key role in the development of these political parties. Some of the reasons why these parties have not been institutionalized include adaptation problem, inadequate public support, institutional restrictions, and structural influences. Furthermore, the antagonism of Beijing towards political parties’ development in Hong Kong has also hampered the development of political parties.







Introduction

Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997 when the British government handed it back to Chinese government following an agreement, which the two governments made in 1984. The agreement required the government of China to rule Hong Kong by a code referred to as "one nation, two systems." Under this system, Hong Kong would be autonomous for fifty years, and would only depend on China in matters concerning defense and foreign affairs. That agreement allowed Hong Kong to set up its legal system, come up with civil rights, and form a body that would be responsible for the election of its leader – the chief executive. This body is made up of 1,200 members, and the majority of the legislatures are considered to be pro-Beijing. The agreement also allowed Hong Kong to enact a mini-constitution, which sets forth that the election of the chief executive should be by a general suffrage through nomination by a widely representative committee according to democratic processes. The law also bars the chief executive from being a member of any political party thus sparking political tension every time a general election nears since most people have a firm conviction that the current system is not democratic. Even though the British government had initiated democratic reforms that sped up formation and competition of political parties in Hong Kong, the parties have not yet been institutionalized because of adaptation problem, lack of public support, institutional constraints, and structural factors. The antipathy of Beijing towards political parties’ development in Hong Kong has also hindered development of political parties in Hong Kong.

Challenges affecting Hong Kong Government

The government has experienced several political problems since 2014 when the top legislative committee of Beijing proposed that a nominating commission would nominate at least two candidates for the position of the chief executive of Hong Kong and then the voters would elect one of them. Indeed, this proposal resulted in an extremely hot climate in Hong Kong, and there are still no signs of its fading. Many people expected that accomplishing a “one person, one vote” system for the election of the city’s leader in 2017 would be a breakthrough in its constitutional development and a significant milestone in attaining democracy. Nonetheless, the issue of electoral reforms took a different turn and resulted in an unprecedentedly severe political cleavage in Hong Kong. That posed adverse effects on the city’s social stability as well as and the competitiveness as an outstanding financial center (Lam P. , 2015).

In January 2015, the government of Hong Kong carried out public consultations regarding electoral reforms and came up with political reform proposals for the election of the chief executive in 2017. These plans were similar to the proposals, which the legislative arm of Chinese government had made a year earlier thus the bill never achieved the votes of two-thirds of the legislative council of Hong Kong. The government of Hong Kong was forced to stop the five-step electoral reform process at stage three, and its dreams of implementing a general suffrage for the election of the chief executive in 2017 fell through (Lam P. , 2015). Therefore, the old system will be used during the 2017 election of the chief executive – a 1200-member committee will elect the chief executive. Despite the fact that the process of constitutional development came to a halt in 2015, the city is still experiencing rising political tensions, and the public opinion continues to be deeply divided. Besides democracy activists continue to intensify the advocacy of localism and pro-independence (The Hong Kong Management Association, 2016).

Various groups have been conducting reckless outburst with violence and aggression in the community. Areas such as Sheung Shui, Yuen Long, and Tuen Mun have experienced violent protests intended to vent anger on cross-border traders and mainland tourists. These violent protests have resulted in chaos and injuries of many people. Increasingly, the advocacy of democracy has spread onto younger generations and radicalized the youth’s perception of the political system of Hong Kong (South China Morning Post , 2013). Youths have been burning copies of the city’s mini-constitution during political rallies and carrying colonial-era flag. Various extreme advocacy organizations have also stoked a more radical activism as a way of condemning the present-day political atmosphere. The police also discovered a purported bomb plot three days before the electoral reform bill was tabled before the legislative council for voting (The Hong Kong Management Association, 2016).

Concerns are rising that the actions of the members of the radical movement, “the National Independent Party” that was created in 2015 may intensify and put public safety at risk thus damage the city’s core value. Furthermore, the government has shifted its focus to handling issues concerning livelihood and economic development since the political climate in the city is too hot for it to handle. It looks upon various sectors of the community to enhance communications and restore trust in every sector of the society. However, many people expect the progressively volatile political situation, conflicts, and violent behaviors in the city to heighten and further worsen its development (The Hong Kong Management Association, 2016).

The emergence and escalation of political radicalization in the city have attracted the attention of many international organizations and people and resulted in considerable worries. The main reason for the formation of the radical groups is to demand democracy in the electoral structures and not to overthrow the present-day socioeconomic system. Furthermore, the political radicalization primarily revolves around the issue of ineffective governance and failure of the present leadership to come up with new policies that would ensure democracy in the election structures due to political fragmentation and polarization (Cheng, 2014).

C.Y. Leung’s government does not have a sufficient politically machinery to remain on course and put into force electoral reforms due to persistent attacks from the members of the opposition who have an immense capacity to prevent things from happening despite the fact that they are the minority group in the legislature. They have made it so hard for the current government to govern Hong Kong since they use this capacity indiscriminately and willingly. Having a look at the Legislative Council would enable one to have an idea of the damage that the opposition’s force has done to the city. The opposition has effectively paralyzed the Legislative Council from the waist upwards. Furthermore, it has succeeded to throw C.Y. Leung’s regime onto the defensive hang a defeatist attitude over it. From time to time, the heads of various departments of the government and the permanent secretaries create initiatives intended to handle particular issues (Lam, 2015).

Pro-Beijing representatives and groups like “Caring Hong Kong Power” and “Silent Majority for Hong Kong” have arisen, condemning activists who are intensifying advocacy of democracy for causing danger to the city. Their argument is that unrelenting opposition to Beijing and civil disobedience would damage the reputation and economy of the city and its relations with Beijing. They have organized many protests the pro-democracy movement. These kinds of far-reaching pro-Beijing demonstrations are infrequent in the city, and many people often doubt their legitimacy, more so where the news came up that various groups paid marchers to take part in such protests. Business leaders have strongly opposed any demonstration due to the resultant economic instability (The Hong Kong Management Association, 2016).

Pro-Beijing representatives put forward that the proposals of the top legislative committee of Beijing regarding the election of the chief executive of Hong Kong are an improvement of the present-day electoral system. They have organized several political rallies to condemn the pro-democracy demonstrations. In November 2015, the police arrested most individuals involved in brawls with those protesting for democracy and reported that some of those arrested had links to city’s Triad gangs. Some members of the public who had earlier supported the sentimentality of the Occupy Central demonstrations eventually rebuffed it due to the unrest resulting from the regular marches in streets and central business areas. These protests have made several companies seek court orders to have several roads cleared (BBC, 2015).

Party Politics

A political party refers to a group of people united to promote the welfares of a given group under particular codes by their cooperative actions and to seek to elect office-holders of the government under a specific tag that aims at dominating over other labels to stay in power or get into power. The presence of political parties in Hong Kong is traceable back to the 1970s when pressure groups emerged to fight for the interests of various sectors of the city due to increased interventions of the government in the socioeconomic domains. These groups were made up of educated and new generation born elites who endeavored to actively take part in the 1980s’ political system via the participation in the representative bodies and debates of the city’s uncertain future. They articulated their thoughts of the government and grassroots and looked forward to moving away from the earlier political commentary’s role. Even though they were only capable of mounting pressure on limited issues due to insufficient channels of participation, they acquired vast experience from several trials and the support of some of the elites who joined public consultative or advisory bodies of the government.

Their success during the elections in 1991 and 1995 motivated them, and they continued to press on to become real political parties. Undeniably, political entities were an integral part of the city’s political structure. Nonetheless, the state of affairs upturned when the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) infiltrated the politics of the city since it imposes many constraints on them. Despite the fact that political parties in Hong Kong have the role in monitoring the government, they do not have the legality to govern under the Special Administrative Region (SAR) and colonial Constitution thus they can only clinch public offices.

The Basic law prohibits the chief executive of Hong Kong from being a member of a political party. Without assured backing in a legislative council full of various political factions, any aspirant for the position of the chief executive is compelled to woo backing on a case-by-case basis. Stressing on a supposed executive-governed government has fueled up conflict within the city, with legislators highly likely to oppose instead of giving unwavering support. The city regularly experiences political tensions every time it draws near to a general election. Even pro-government political parties are less likely to throw their weight to support the chief executive if he/she comes up with unpopular proposals. The political climate in Hong Kong worsened after the government came up with plans to implement a universal suffrage for the election of the chief executive in 2017 and carry out Legco elections in 2020 (South China Morning Post, 2013).

Therefore, the only way out is to develop party politics further. Without a doubt, political parties have become an essential part of the city’s political system in spite of their lack of statutory regulations and official recognition for many years. Rather than maintain the status quo that is obviously unsustainable in due course, a more superior strategy to overcome the current political tension in the city would involve engaging political parties in the administration. Giving the future chief executive including his team a chance to come from a particular political party through sufficient votes in the Legislative Council would be a major leap forward for Hong Kong political system. However, legitimizing political parties in the city’s governance would be a huge step for Beijing since it prefers the executive-led governance. Some political analysts argue that the effect of party politics Hong Kong on the interior is inexplicably a serious concern. Nonetheless, party politics is a permanent step on the road to achieving democracy. It is thus imperative to have a reconsideration on the city’s political system (South China Morning Post, 2013).

To burst through the age-old gridlock between the legislative and executive arms of Hong Kong, about twenty years since the handover from the British government, merely seeking democratization of the electoral system is not sufficient – it is imperative for Hong Kong to come up with party politics. A well-established party politics system, whether in the form of an alliance created by several parties or a majority party, can lessen conflicts, manage power relations, and enhance cooperation between the legislature and executive. That would not only deter the existence of a “solitary” chief executive but also lead to the formation of a government with a high degree of accountability to the people, promote good governance and rational and peaceful political system sooner or later (Chi-him, 2016).

The fact that the Constitution prohibits the chief executive of Hong Kong from being affiliated with any political party and the government discourages two-party contest should not deter political parties from leading the discussion on lawmaking. If the parties do not have political ability and ambition, then the authority in the city is doomed since various politicians will continue being all talk, and the role of making policies will be given to the technocrats who put in a lot of effort to form an all-embracing vision. Besides, the confidence of the public would nose-dive due to the absence of candidates with sound and real political ambitions to elect (South China Morning Post , 2013).

The public opinion regarding democratization in Hong Kong is highly divided. Some people support the idea of preserving the current system in Hong Kong, while others advocate for basic reforms of the Basic Law. According to a poll, which the Chinese University of Hong Kong conducted in July 2016, about 17.4 percent of the people interviewed in Hong Kong would like it to be independent after 2047 (Albert, 2017). However, less than 4 percent of the people have firm conviction that it is possible for Hong Kong to be independent and its political party system to develop. The political system in Hong Kong does not sufficiently represent the broad range of perspectives, which the population of Hong Kong holds (Wong, 2012). The worsening economic inequality (the level of income inequality in Hong Kong is among the highest in the world) as well as the widening generational gap, have played a key role in intensifying political divisions. The younger generations in Hong Kong have developed political criticisms since they believe that they do not reap the benefits of the wealth of their city and that they face stiff competition from the influx of people from the mainland. The mainland money’s influence also aggravates the disparity among socioeconomic classes. The government of Hong Kong faces a big challenge in reconciling these conflicting political powers while maintaining the stability of the city (Albert, 2017).

Therefore, it is necessary for the city to start putting in place the prerequisites for party politics to find its way to improved governance. If the process of electing the chief executive is democratic, candidates who do not have party support will struggle to get firm support.

Party institutionalization in Hong Kong

Party institutionalization refers to the degree to which political parties establish a regular set of structures and mechanisms that enable them to contend for political power efficiently. It is the process, which marks a political party’s transition into an institution that can discriminate between politically or socially relevant behavior and that which is considered incompatible with the values or preferences that the institution represents and punish or reward accordingly. It designates the passage of parties from a solidarity-oriented system to the attainment of its set goals to an interest-oriented system toward its survival. It also entails the transition from a phase wherein aggressive strategies do dictate the environment to the stage wherein plans of adapting policy prevail. It implies the transition from a scenario whereby the freedom of choice of leaders is broad to a situation whereby the freedom of choice of leaders is reduced drastically (Gavin, 2007).

Understanding party institutionalization in Hong Kong is imperative to understand political parties’ development in a political system going through democratization. Analysis of stability, autonomy, and partisanship of Hong Kong political parties reveals that party institutionalization in Hong Kong is somewhat weak; however, there are indications of progress. Some of the primary factors that hinder the process of party institutionalization in Hong Kong include adaptation problem, lack of public support, institutional constraints, and structural factors. Political parties have introduced a new page of democratic politics as one of the vital necessities for democratic consolidation. Nonetheless, a study of party institutionalization shows that Hong Kong's political parties are still far from mature thus this limits their effect on the process of democratization (Lam, 2010).

Political parties in Hong Kong are still under-developed thus cannot serve as a primary institution, which bridges the gap existing between the civil society and the state, assumes the role of aggregating interests and attracts and trains political skills. Furthermore, the fact that the political parties have shallow roots in the society and are less legitimate in the public domain implies that they are still not ready to be an institution that can mitigate conflicts between the civil society and the state effectively. Indeed, the actors in an institutionalized party system are expected to develop behavior and expectations based on the conception that the core outlines of party contest will prevail into the predictable future. The primary dimensions that influence institutionalization of parties include non-personalistic parties, legitimacy, strong roots in the community, and stability.

Party structure in Hong Kong enjoys stability though is still not legitimate in the eyes of the public and has not developed deep roots in the society. If the attitude to democratization is considered as the key political cleavage that is responsible for the division of political parties in Hong Kong, then a two-bloc system has been in place for more than two decades. For the legislative elections that have been conducted in the city since 1991, the relative vote portions of the two blocs have been broadly stable. However, the parties’ relative influence in the legislature underwent some changes over time. The conservative and pro-business coalition garnered nearly 60 percent of the legislative seats between 1991 and 1995, and the Democrats took the remaining seats. After the 1995 election, LegCo was more of a two-party system as the Conservatives and the Democrats took an equal number of seats. After the 1998 election, the pro-Beijing conservatives garnered more seats than the Democrats who took about a third of the seats. The Democrats then garnered more seats than the Conservatives after the 2004 election; however, they were still the minority (Ma, 2007).

The changing influence of these two blocs over time did not result from a change in their vote proportions or public attitudes but a broad range of changes in LegCo’s institutional powers and electoral rules. Constant institutional flux associated with the legislative and electoral institutions have played a key role in hindering party institutionalization in Hong Kong. Parties have not been able to continually adapt their policy positions, campaign strategies, and internal organizations to the changing electoral methods and LegCo institutions. Beyond doubt, the institutional changes, which took place after the 1997 election hampered the development of political parties indirectly and resulted in a more disjointed party system, rather than promoting party institutionalization. These institutional changes, in the legislature, made political parties suffer from reducing public legitimacy.

Hong Kong’s political system has not yet been able to completely transit from an authoritarian system of governance to a democratic system since the process of transition is too fragile for it. The public and elites have not fully accepted institutions of democracy (Michael, 2015). Additionally, they do not trust these institutions as well. Political parties in Hong Kong still do not play a leading role in the political debate structuring since the Basic Law prohibits the Chief Executive from being affiliated with any political party. Therefore, political parties in this city cannot present candidates to compete for the position of the Chief Executive. They cannot form as well as structure the government functioning (Siu-Kai & Hsin-chi, 2000).

Together with the fading of the legislature of Hong Kong after the 1997 election, the political parties’ development went through a process of retrogression. Even though political parties were the significant players in the politics of Hong Kong between 1991 and 1997, many factors played a vital role to its limitation. The political parties of Hong Kong became one of the negligible parts of the population by 2004. Indeed, the primary factor that attributed this was a weak mobilization of resources and power. Moreover, public opinion polls showed that political parties suffered low legitimacy (Ma, 2007). Since the 1980s, political parties in Hong Kong have been playing the role of keeping the government in check as opposition parties. Such institutional and societal factors have initiated fragile party institutionalization in Hong Kong. Since the 2000s, the political system of Hong Kong has become progressively divided, with distrust lashing wedges between the pan-democratic camp and the pro-Beijing camp, and even melting union among the pan-democrats as more radical powers gain popularity.

The political parties in Hong Kong have been on the decline for many years after the British government returned this territory back to the Chinese government. Without a doubt, his decline stands out in relief in a setting that features “The people of Hong Kong governing Hong Kong” as well as slow democratization. One of the key reasons for the decline of the political parties is the fact that Hong Kong’s political party system is stunted. Noticeable in this stunted political system is a ruling party’s nonexistence. The antipathy of Beijing towards political parties’ development in Hong Kong is the leading cause of the stunted party system. This antipathy discourages the conservative elites and the Hong Kong government from forming a political party (Crovitz, 2014). The fact that business entities lack incentives to form political parties for the protection of their welfares is another reason. Indeed, the less-developed party system in Hong Kong has resulted in severe adverse effects on the democratization of the city, representation of interests, governance and further development of the city, and attitudes of the public towards the political system (Siu-kai & Hsin-chi, 2002).

Conclusion

Political parties in Hong Kong were poorly known phenomena until the late 1980s. Since then, the processes of democratization instigated by the British in expectancy to hand over Hong Kong in 1997 resulted in the political capacity for contesting for public positions. The last British governor of Hong Kong initiated democratic reforms, which sped up formation and competition of political parties in Hong Kong. After two decades of political parties’ development, the parties have not yet been institutionalized as they still experience weak and shallow public support. The people of Hong Kong still greet them with doubt. The most significant thing – as far as their future prospect is concerned – is that the limited nature of democratization and the political setting in which political parties are formed hinder their development. These two factors hamper the political parties from broadening their social support base via changing their policy platforms and political positions. However, the new political climate in Hong Kong, which resulted from the return of this territory to the Chinese government and the economic downturn that Hong Kong suffered during the Asian financial crisis make changes along these lines important. As a result, political parties in Hong Kong have become captives of past policies of China and Britain and history.

















References

Albert, E. (2017, March 21). Democracy in Hong Kong. Retrieved from Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/hong-kong/democracy-hong-kong/p33887

BBC. (2015, June 18). Hong Kong's democracy debate. Retrieved from BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-27921954

Cheng, J. Y.-s. (2014). The Emergence of Radical Politics in Hong Kong: Causes and Impact. The China Review, 14(1), 199-232.

Chi-him, G. W. (2016, April 22). Hong Kong’s political parties must rise above the status of pressure groups. Retrieved from South China Morning Post: http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1937657/hong-kongs-political-parties-must-rise-above-status-pressure

Crovitz, L. G. (2014). China ‘Voids’ Hong Kong Rights. Wall Street Journal, 1-12.

Gavin, K. M. (2007). Party Institutionalization in Hong Kong Transition: A astudy of the Frontier. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University.

Lam, J. (2010). Party Institutionalization in Hong Kong. Asian Perspective, 34(2), 53-83.

Lam, P. (2015, December 17). Hong Kong’s political problems are simply too hot to handle. Retrieved from South China Morning Post: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1892402/hong-kongs-political-problems-are-simply-too-hot-handle

Ma, N. (2007). Political Development in Hong Kong: State, Political Society, and Civil Society. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Michael, F. M. (2015). Prospects for Democracy in Hong Kong: The 2017 Election Reforms. Congressional Research Service , 1-30.

Siu-Kai, L., & Hsin-chi, K. (2000). Partial Democratization, "Foundation Moment" and Political Parties in Hong Kong. The China Quarterly, 705-720.

Siu-kai, L., & Hsin-chi, K. (2002). Hong Kong's Stunted Political Party System. The China Quarterly, 1010-1028.

South China Morning Post . (2013, June 6). Party politics an irreversible step towards democracy in Hong Kong. Retrieved from South China Morning Post : http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1254357/party-politics-irreversible-step-towards-democracy-hong-kong

The Hong Kong Management Association. (2016). A Study of Trends and Challenges Facing Hong Kong . Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Management Association.

Wong, Y.-c. (2012). One Country, Two Systems in Crisis: Hong Kong's Transformation. Hong Kong: Lexington Books.