China and the future of democracy in Hong Kong

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/02/china-future-democracy-hong-kong

Version 0 of 1.

Hong Kong’s current upheaval is even more “complicated” than Martin Jacques acknowledges (China is Hong Kong’s future – not its enemy, 1 October). Jacques highlights colonial Britain’s longstanding failure to introduce democracy. Fair enough. But democratisation was not, as he implies, the outcome of Beijing’s farsighted benevolence. Commitments (albeit vague) to democratise were inserted into Sino-British agreements during the 1980s, largely in response to local civil society pressure, and that pressure has grown steadily ever since.

Jacques argues that calls now for greater democracy are fuelled by resentment at an influx of wealthy mainlanders. There is some truth to this – but not enough to justify boiling down local grievances to envy spawned by a reversal in Hong Kong-mainland economic fortunes. Most Hongkongers are the children or grandchildren of refugees from Mao’s China. Mistrust of Communists has for many always been central to their local consciousness – along with an attachment to distinctive local institutions. Among those prized institutions are an independent judiciary and a free press. Jacques tells us these are as safe as ever. However, Hong Kong’s slide down the World Press Freedom Index (now level-pegging with Senegal at No 61) suggests otherwise. As for judicial independence, a Chinese government declaration this June that senior judges must be “patriotic” was not reassuring. And the central government exerts far more influence over local politics than Jacques recognises in referring to Beijing’s “hands-off approach”.

Hong Kong’s post-1997 trajectory has been more benign than many feared. But it does not follow that we should expect young Hongkongers today to fawn in gratitude and shut up about democracy. Jacques’s Olympian disregard for their aspirations, and for the distinctive local identity and culture, is profoundly condescending and unwise.Edward VickersHong Kong permanent resident and former local schoolteacher

• Martin Jacques attempts to defend China by arguing that, contrary to the west’s impression that it is an authoritarian regime, China is in fact the champion of democracy and freedom in Hong Kong. Nothing can be further from the truth. For one thing, the present proposal for electoral reform approved by Beijing puts strict controls on who gets to stand in the election. It would let Beijing claim a false veneer of legitimacy for the future leader of Hong Kong.

Resisting such a proposal is the core of the whole protest – a point obscured by Jacques. He thinks that because Hong Kong is governed under the “one country, two systems” principle and the process of democratisation starts after the handover, China represents a force of democracy. What he overlooks is the historical involvement of Britain in pushing for such an arrangement in the first place, in the negotiations leading up to the Sino-British joint declaration in the 80s. Future democratisation was the condition laid down by the British for the handover of sovereignty to China. It was not of China’s own initiative.Christopher CheungHong Kong

• As a Taiwanese-American, I wanted to say thank you for your piece (Taiwan shows growing support for Hong Kong protests, theguardian.com, 30 September). My family members and I have attended recent protests in Taiwan and the US in support of democracy on both sides of the Taiwan strait. Thank you especially for discussing Taiwan’s complicated history with more nuance and accuracy than the mainstream media usually offers. I think that it’s so important for reporters to qualify their use of the terms “one China” or “renegade province” – to highlight that these are claims by Beijing, not immutable facts written in stone.Catherine ChouAmherst, Massachusetts, USA