Hong Kong faces suffrage test

It is widely accepted that Hong Kong residents want to exercise the right to elect the CE directly by 2017. Given that the NPC Standing Committee has already decided that 2017 is the target year for the introduction of universal suffrage, why is there still uncertainty on whether it will materialize? The answer lies in the constitutional requirement of two-thirds majority in LegCo and the spectrum of existing political forces in Hong Kong, which includes "pro-establishment" parties and figures as well as what is commonly known as "pan-democrats" or "the opposition".

In 2005, the pan-democrats in LegCo vetoed the political reform package proposed by Donald Tsang, the CE, on the ground that it was not democratic enough. In 2010, another package proposed by Tsang would have been vetoed again on the same ground but for a last-minute amendment to the proposal on the creation of the "super District Council seats".

Similarly, the success or failure of the forthcoming electoral reform hinges on whether the government can propose a model for the CE election which satisfies the democratic aspirations of Hong Kong residents as represented by at least two-thirds of the members of LegCo.

In recent months, senior officials from the central and Hong Kong governments have repeatedly said that any model for the CE election must be based on and be consistent with the provisions of the Basic Law and the relevant decisions of the NPC Standing Committee. For example, the mode of "citizens' nomination" of candidates for the CE election proposed by some pan-democrats and the "Alliance for True Democracy" is considered to be inconsistent with the provision on nominations by the Nominating Committee (NC) in Article 45 of the Basic Law.

Officials, too, have pointed out that the NC's nominations are "institutional nominations" (nominations by the NC as an institution), which are different in nature from the procedure of joint nominations by individuals used by the existing Election Committee for the CE election. It has also been stressed that the central government will not appoint as CE someone who is "confrontational" toward the central government. These considerations are likely to shape the parameters of the model of the CE election to be proposed by the government.

The realization of the CE election by universal suffrage in 2017 will be no easy task. If politics is the art of the possible, the project of realizing universal suffrage in the CE election will be a supreme test of the skills, acumen, courage and wisdom of Hong Kong politicians in practicing this art. I believe that it is possible to devise a practicable model for the CE election, one that recognizes the democratic aspirations of Hong Kong residents as well as preserves the prerogatives of the central government in ensuring that the Hong Kong CE will not be confrontational toward Beijing.

For example, it is possible to design a nominating system by which candidates of different political persuasions may get nominated (as was the case in the 2007 and 2012 elections), and at the same time enabling the central government to set criteria on, and to determine, whether a candidate is acceptable and eligible to be appointed from the central government's point of view. Hopefully, Hong Kong residents will accept such a system as a sincere and reasonable attempt to achieve the delicate balance needed for "one country, two systems" - particularly the balance between Hong Kong residents' right to vote to choose their CE and the central government's power of appointment of the CE, which is substantive and not merely formal or ceremonial.

The author is a professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong, and a member of the Hong Kong Basic Law Committee of the National People's Congress Standing Committee. The views herein are expressed in his personal capacity and not in the capacity of Basic Law Committee member.

(China Daily 12/02/2013 page9)