The crisis in Hong Kong seems to be coming to an end and the level of violence has thankfully not escalated.
What’s so revealing, however, is not what the student protests tell us about Hong Kong, but what they say about mainland China, the future of China’s relationship with Taiwan, and how China might settle its territorial disputes with neighbouring countries over islands in the South China Sea.
We here in the West sometimes forget that creating a Liberal democracy means more than just building a modern economy based on free market values. It also involves creating a form of governance based on the Rule of Law, multi-party elections, and freedom of expression including a free press. China clearly fails on all points.
This whole dispute between the students and the country’s rulers all started when Hong Kong’s Chief Executive reneged on holding free and fair elections for selecting Hong Kong’s government, scheduled for 2017. The Chief Executive, no doubt under pressure from the country’s rulers in Beijing, decided that future candidates would first have to be approved by Beijing. No democracy works this way.
Hong Kong was re-united with China in 1997. Many in Hong Kong and the international community were nervous about this impending unification with China, so Beijing sought to reassure the investment community and financial markets by promising a one country, two systems policy.
In other words, Hong Kong would become part of China but it would be permitted to maintain its own form of governance and legal system.
This agreement has clearly been reneged on. What does this say about China other than the obvious fact that it fails to respect its own agreements?
For starters, China remains what it’s been for the last several decades since economic reforms were started: a soft authoritarian state where multi-party elections are outlawed. The lesson for Chinese citizens in the mainland is clear: Expect prosperity and personal liberty so long as the Communist Party’s right to rule is not questioned.
This crisis shows that the Rule of Law in China remains weak. Imagine if a similar crisis had erupted in a democratic country with a real constitution. The aggrieved state or territory would have appealed the unilateral decision by the national government to the country’s highest court. But China is not a constitutional democracy based on the Rule of Law. The students in Hong Kong don’t have a high court to appeal to that would hear this matter in a fair and impartial manner.
The Communist Party’s fears are easy to see. The last thing it wants is a model of democracy within its own borders. The advent of the internet simply makes communication between the country’s different regions too easy. Those seeking to promote democratic values would have a great model to borrow from.
The rulers in Beijing are reminding China’s various autonomous regions and special economic zones that “specialness” ends at the ballot box. The Uighurs and Tibetans, along with other religious and ethnic minority groups, were probably the first to get the message.
What does this mean for Hong Kong? Most economic experts point out that Hong Kong has been losing importance as a financial center ever since the rise of Shanghai. Hong Kong hasn’t yet become a second rate financial city or provincial backwater but its future remains uncertain.
It’s clear from news reports that most of the demonstrators were university students. Where then were the ordinary citizens? All signs indicate the students were not supported by a majority of Hong Kong’s population. Most of Hong Kong’s residents rightfully fear that alienating the national government in Beijing will only destroy Hong Kong’s economy.
This won’t be the first time that students and the rest of society disagree on how a country should develop.
The Taiwanese are no doubt monitoring this situation. A place of refuge for Chinese citizens fleeing the communist takeover of mainland China, Beijing continues to insist that Taiwan is part of China.
Taiwan however has slowly evolved from an authoritarian state to one based on the Rule of Law, capitalism, and democracy. Vigorous and hotly contested multi-party elections along with a dynamic press have become key features of Taiwan’s model of governance, something absent in China.
What then is the likelihood of China and Taiwan ever coming to an agreement over some form of constitutional union? China’s arbitrary decision to unilaterally change how Hong Kong governs itself plays into the hands of Taiwan nationalists who argue against unification with China. Unification, they maintain, would result in Taiwan giving up its hard fought democracy. Are they wrong?
Lastly, there’s the issue of the South China Sea. As discussed in a previous blog, China has territorial claims over a number of islands. These claims are contested by Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines, and most importantly, Vietnam. What guarantees do these states have that any future agreement with China would be respected? Isn’t China’s cancellation of how elections are held in Hong Kong proof that any agreement with China is open to unilateral cancellation at Beijing’s discretion?
The rulers in China will no doubt win this battle. China will continue to develop its own form of civil society based on the Communist Party’s interpretation of Confucius principles. The model is there for all to see: capitalism and economic prosperity without democracy. Third world countries mired in poverty and violence are no doubt taking note.
Many in the West believe the Chinese model is doom to failure. Prosperous people, including the Chinese, will eventually clamor for basic democratic values. Only time will tell, but right now it seems China’s rulers have the majority of its people on board. And this will remain the case so long as the Communist Party continues to lift tens of millions of ordinary citizens out of poverty.
But prosperity isn’t the whole story. Chinese nationalism should never be underestimated, especially on the part of ordinary citizens. Chinese citizens in mainland China see the Hong Kong students as spoiled children who don’t know how good they have it. And many see any foreign criticism of how Beijing rules Hong Kong as a form of internal meddling.
The world has clearly understood the message. Unlike the situation with the Tiananmen Square massacres that took place in 1989, foreign governments have been very careful not to over criticize Beijing. No one wants to upset the world’s largest economy.
Was all this worth it for the Communist rulers in China? Doesn’t this ruin China’s reputation? Beijing doesn’t, from the look of things, seem to care. Nor did Vladimir Putin care about international opinion when he annexed Crimea or eastern Ukraine. Authoritarian rulers don’t seem to concern themselves with public relations.
China is clearly not evolving into a democracy as events in Hong Kong are proving. But China is not a mess. It isn’t Switzerland but it’s also not Iraq or Afghanistan. The ability of states to evolve into Liberal democracies takes decades if not centuries. Most countries in the West can attest to this phenomenon.
Critics from the West should keep this in mind. So should the students in Hong Kong. But there’s also a message China’s rulers should take from this crisis. Namely, that respecting agreements is expected of any modern state intent on acting globally.
