The Guardian view on the battle for democracy in Hong Kong

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/guardian-view-on-battle-for-democracy-hong-kong

Version 0 of 1.

The Chinese can’t say they weren’t warned. Everybody with even an ounce of common sense told Beijing and its local satraps in Hong Kong that their transparent attempt to fix the election of the next chief executive of that territory by ensuring that only vetted candidates could stand was likely to blow up in their faces. So it has proved, with police over the weekend battling student demonstrators whose admirable commitment to democracy seems to have surprised the government. This is exactly the kind of image which a financial centre whose stability has until now been a byword does not need.

So far there has been no resort to lethal arms, and no mass detentions, but every day that goes by without dialogue increases the possibility of both. How could the Chinese authorities have got themselves into such a mess? The answer can already be discerned in the way pro-Chinese media are describing the situation. There the blame is laid on foreigners and western intelligence agencies. There is stress on “illegality” and the culpability of citizens who “do not love China”. There seems no room in the official mind for the idea that it has made the wrong decisions.

Hong Kong has in recent years been run by an alliance of local communists and local big business, with mainland officials and intelligence people keeping a careful eye on both. They have their differences, but come together to sustain the pro-Beijing regime. They have been able to contain the third force, the opposition pan-democrats who would be able in any fair vote to outnumber them, although not necessarily by much. The democratic forces are not, however, anti-Beijing. They want democracy because they believe in it as a principle. But they are led by realists who see themselves as in favour of judicious accommodation with Beijing and of a modest, unprovocative pursuit of Hong Kong’s interests and defence of its special status. Educated young people – looking at rising housing costs and struggling health and education systems as mainlanders, both rich and poor, arrive in increasing numbers – form a more volatile element on the democratic side.

But they too grasp that no Hong Kong chief executive could systematically oppose Beijing. They want an executive, it can be surmised, who would occasionally say “no”, or “yes, but”, and who would counterbalance the cosy and often corrupt party-business nexus. That does not seem an excessive demand. The 27 pan-democratic members of the legislature have vowed to vote against the law that would permit only vetted candidates. As long as there are no defectors, they have the numbers – just – to bring it down but then would be left with the present system, which is no better than the proposed one. Surely there is still time for some kind of bargain. Otherwise Hong Kong will become an even more polarised, resentful and angry place than it is today. Is that in anybody’s interest?