Democracy Denied

Identity, Civil Society and Illiberal Democracy in Hong Kong

Nicholas Thomas

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138311046
• eBook ISBN: 9780429859496
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Democracy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Published in 1999, this book is designed to provide the reader with a detailed understanding of Hong Kong's social and political development. It offers a contemporary, holistic understanding of Hong Kong, which will not only complement existing works but also provide the reader with a solid foundation for understanding future developments in the territory. The book is divided into three sections: Identity, Civil Society and Politics. The first two sections provide a discrete understanding of the issues involved. This analysis is then utilised to explain the particular path of political development Hong Kong experienced in the 1980s and 1990s. Due to the in-depth analysis provided this work will be of use either to academics or to members of the general public seeking to understand the development of Hong Kong.

1 Introduction

The Setting of the Problem

This book is a study of Hong Kong's transition from a colonial-authoritarian polity to a liberal polity in which democratic ideals have become increasingly important. In other countries this type of transition is open ended, but not in Hong Kong. With the expiry of a 99-year lease on the bulk of the territory Hong Kong had to be reunited with the Chinese mainland. As such, the path of political transformation which Hong Kong was following was truncated, unable to reach its natural conclusion. This book examines that experience, demonstrating that in Hong Kong's case a continuation of this political evolution would not necessarily have led to a transition to a liberal-democratic polity.

The colony's transformation, however, was never in doubt. It was predetermined by a succession of treaties, both old and new, the purpose of which was, firstly, to give the territory away and then, secondly, to ensure its peaceful return. The ultimate effect of these treaties was witnessed by the world when, on July 1st, 1997, Hong Kong was handed back to the People's Republic of China.

Old and New Treaties

Hong Kong, as it existed whilst under British rule, was not a single territory but three separate territories administered as one. These three territories (Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories and Outlying Islands) were the result of three separate conflicts waged between Britain and China in the nineteenth century. The First Opium war (also referred to, more diplomatically, as the Anglo-Chinese war) of 1839-1842 was the catalyst for the signing of the Treaty of Nanjing which gave the island of Hong Kong to the British 'in perpetuity'. The conclusion of the Second Opium war (1858-1860) saw the signing of the Convention of Peking which ceded the Kowloon peninsula and Stonecutters Island to the British, again 'in perpetuity'. The third and final portion of land that comprises Hong Kong, the New Territories and Outlying Islands, was, unlike the first two, obtained by diplomatic rather than military means. In other words, this portion of land was leased rather than taken from China, a mirror of the practices then being followed by other European powers. This diplomatic approach was cemented in the Second Convention of Peking (1898) and 'was administered as an integral part of the existing colony'.¹ Without this final addition to the colony, which added much needed farming land and water catchments, it is unlikely that Hong Kong could have remained a viable outpost, let alone flourished.

While it took nearly fifty years to sign all the treaties that placed the territory of Hong Kong under British rule, it took less than a decade for the negotiations and treaties to be signed that governed the return of Hong Kong to China. The Chinese position on the old treaties has remained consistent since they were first signed; that is, each of the three treaties was forced upon China in a time when the Qing dynasty was moribund and unable to deny the British demands. Hence, all the treaties were signed from an unequal position and are, as a result, invalid.

Wesley-Smith explains that the three treaties are considered by the Chinese to be unequal, as:

only one party appears to derive any benefit from it. There is no quid pro quo which China receives as compensation for her temporary loss of territory. In addition.... the contracting parties were not in a position of equal bargaining power when the convention was drawn up.²

There is further support for China's position under modern international law. In particular, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the 1974 United Nations Resolution on the Definition of Aggression. The Vienna Convention confirms that should a treaty be imposed by force then it is invalid and the 1974 Resolution states that any territorial acquisition gained through aggression is unlawful.³ In addition to international law, China has also taken the position that because of the way it was treated by foreign powers in the nineteenth century, as well as the fact that the treaties were not designed to provide China with a mutual benefit, no matter what international law or convention states, the treaties are invalid.⁴

As a result of their stance, the Chinese began discussions with Britain, concerning the expiry of the New Territories lease with a singular purpose: to reclaim the colony of Hong Kong on July 1st, 1997. Despite initial efforts by the British to continue administering the territory, on 19 December, 1984, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Prime Minister Zhao Ziyang formally signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The purpose of the Joint Declaration was to provide a framework within which the transition could take place as well as decide how Hong Kong would be governed after the retrocession. The key point of the Joint Declaration was the incorporation of the 'one country, two systems' policy. Originally devised as a model to provide incentive for Taiwan to return to China, this policy was put in place to guarantee the continuation of Hong Kong's 'way of life' after the handover as well as ensure a high degree of autonomy for the Special Administrative Region.⁵

The formal signing of the Joint Declaration on 19 December, 1984, by Prime Minister's Thatcher and Zhao was an important step in determining Hong Kong's fate after the handover, but the negotiating process to give the Hong Kong people a measure of protection and stability post-1997 was by no means over. For the next six years work continued to expand the Joint Declaration into a formal framework that could be adopted as a type of mini-constitution for the Hong Kong SAR. The discussions took place on an issue by issue basis with individual working groups convened to reach agreement over such issues as; direct elections, the stationing of the Chinese military in Hong Kong, who would manage the SAR's finances post-1997 and the renegotiation of land leases (which, prior to an agreement, all expired three days before the handover).

The final drafting process brought together both main landers and Hong Kong residents so as to give the appearance of being as open and as fair as possible. Despite such appearances, China was always in full control of the drafting process and the few dissenting voices were diluted or ignored.⁶ China's position was aided by the British, was characterised by a move away from the high stakes policy which characterised the Joint Declaration negotiations to a 'policy of quiet diplomacy and non-confrontation' which it had 'concluded to be the most effective way of handling China'.⁷

The Basic Law became law at the Third Session of the Seventh National People's Congress on April 4th, 1990. Should the Chinese authorities obey the letter of the Basic Law, then Hong Kong will, as promised, retain its current way of life. However, the recent decision by Chief Executive Officer Tung Chee-hwa, to curtail civil liberties and include Chinese national security provisions into the local legal code (an act which can bring such offences under mainland jurisdiction) creates some doubt as to whether the spirit as well as the letter of the Basic Law will be followed or whether it will all become an 'internal affair' for China and the rest of the world.⁸

Defining the Problem

Throughout Hong Kong's thirteen year transition period (1984-1997) two statements have been made, with various turns of phrase, without cessation; that 'Hong Kong is an economic city not a political city' and that 'Democracy in Hong Kong is a creation of the British, in a vain attempt to control Hong Kong after July 1st'.⁹ In the case of the first claim it is presupposed that economic development can be kept separate from social and political development. The second claim (which flows from the first) interprets the political liberalisation that Hong Kong has experienced as an artificial construct.

This book argues that both of these claims are false. The rapid economic growth that Hong Kong has undergone since the end of the Second World War has had a direct impact on the social and political sectors. Indeed, the rise of a local capitalist middle class (a direct byproduct of the economic development) has had a profound impact on the focus and nature of the political processes. The most obvious impact has been in the formation of pressure groups and, in an evolutionary step from these pressure groups, political parties. Although it is true that most of the political developments have taken place during the transition period, Hong Kong has always exhibited a politicised history. This is a fact often ignored by those who suggest that Hong Kong is politically apathetic.¹⁰

In demonstrating the fallacy of these two claims this book will draw upon a modified analytical framework provided by Claus Offe. In his article 'Capitalism by Democratic Design?' Offe offers a conceptualisation of the political system incorporating three tiers or levels, where 'politics' is the combined outcome of decision-making at all three tiers. As Offe stated:

At the most fundamental level a 'decision' must be made as to who 'we' are, i.e., a decision on identity, citizenship, and the territorial as well as social and cultural boundaries of the nation-state. At the second level, rules, procedures, and rights must be established which together make up the constitution or the institutional framework of the 'regime'. It is only at the highest level that those processes go on which are sometimes mistaken for the essence of politics, namely, decisions on who gets what, when, and how - in terms of both political power and economic resources.¹¹

To paraphrase and (slightly) reinterpret Offe, where the two lower levels are fixed then the activity in the highest level will be 'highly path dependent, and its parameters...strategy proof.¹² In other words, in the case where the state fixes the character of the lower levels, then the political activity must take place according to the parameters set by the state. However, where the parameters of the lower levels (either or both) are not fixed, then the state cannot control the path the political system will take.

This three-tiered model can also be utilised in a different manner when examining Hong Kong's political processes. On the one hand, Offe has conceptualised a system whereby the form of the identity and operating system will affect the form (and thus outcomes) of the political system. On the other hand, and applying this schema to the case of Hong Kong, it can be argued that there has existed (since the mid 1980s) a three tiered political system which, by virtue of a series of bidirectional linkages between the tiers, has meant that changes to the two lower tiers has affected the operation of the top tier's political processes. In other words, to use Offe's terminology, the change in the two lower tiers of the political system away from a path-dependent structure to a non-path dependent structure meant that the top tier would likewise become less path dependent.

It is this book's contention that (in the case of Hong Kong) in a colonial-authoritarian system the state's policy of local-elite incorporation has been an attempt to fix the lower levels into a predetermined mould. However, where the lower levels are not being entirely decided by the state, they are subject to the impulses of the nation.¹³ As a result, the direction the political system takes is determined by the balance of power between the state and the nation. Moreover, drawing on Offe's model it can be hypothesised that should the balance of power, at the lower levels, decisively shift to the nation (rather than remaining with the state) then it will be the nation that is defining the state rather than the reverse. In such a situation the outcomes of the political system would be geared to the needs of the people of the nation rather than the needs of the state.¹⁴ In other words a transformation from an authoritarian regime (where the power lies with the state) to a liberal-democratic polity (where the power lies with the people) would take place.

It is necessary to point out that Offe's model accounts tor the development of a political system of a nation-state, whereas Hong Kong was always a colony. However, the development of Hong Kong, under British rule, from a colonial regime to a quasi-polity does not invalidate the use of Offe's model. As will be demonstrated in the following chapters, the first two levels of the political system remained underdeveloped up until the transition period, whereupon they rapidly matured and led to the development of the highest level of the model. Hence, so long as Offe's model is placed within a developmental/chronological context (as in this book) then the model, for Hong Kong, remains valid.

This book comprehensively examines the changes that the Hong Kong polity has experienced since its creation, with a general focus on the post Second World War period and a particular focus on the transition period (1984-1997). The three areas of most concern are, in accordance with Offe's framework: the development of a Hong Kong identity, the conditions under which both the Hong Kong nation and Hong Kong state operate, and the resultant political system. In doing so, this book will demonstrate that (1) Hong Kong is not solely an economic city but has contained a strong political element and (2) that the development of illiberal institutions in conjunction with democratic ideals was a natural progression in Hong Kong's socio-political evolution.

Section Outline and Chapter Breakdown

Cha...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Dedication
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• Note on Romanisation of Chinese Names
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 A Modernised History of Hong Kong
• Section 1 — Development of the Hong Kong Nation-State and its Identity
• Section 2 — The Operating System of Hong Kong: Civil Society
• Section 3 — Hong Kong Politics 1984-1998
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Bibliography
• Index