So what up in Hong Kong?

[IncessantMace]

As Chairman Mao said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" so in reality if they wanted they could go in now or in 25 years and seize Hong Kong regardless of what the locals think.

 

[luiz]

As Chairman Mao said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" so in reality if they wanted they could go in now or in 25 years and seize Hong Kong regardless of what the locals think.

One thing the modern CCP leadership learned, though, is that Chairman Mao was a raving lunatic. They claim he was 70% right and 30% wrong; their practice suggests they actually believe he was about 99% wrong.

Of course they could subdue Hong Kong and there's nothing the locals can do about it. But HK plays an important role for China's prosperity, and not only that, any excessively harsh move against HK could scare investors away from other free economic zones such as Shanghai. So while they most certainly will crack down dissent in HK (because they don't know how to act differently), they won't go all Mao on them.

 

[peter grimes]

Uhhhh because China is ruled by ONE party and with democracy you need multiple parties? .

Why do you need multiple parties - or any parties at all for that matter?

Consider the case of a single party. There are candidates for leadership roles people vote in the equivalent of a primary for their preferred candidate. That's no less democratic to me than the case in the USA.

Or the case of no party: anyone can be a candidate once they meet certain electoral commission thresholds. No parties, just positions on issues. People still vote for their preferred candidates.

I don't see why political party(s) are required for democracy.

 

[luiz]

Why do you need multiple parties - or any parties at all for that matter?

Consider the case of a single party. There are candidates for leadership roles people vote in the equivalent of a primary for their preferred candidate. That's no less democratic to me than the case in the USA.

Or the case of no party: anyone can be a candidate once they meet certain electoral commission thresholds. No parties, just positions on issues. People still vote for their preferred candidates.

I don't see why political party(s) are required for democracy.

It's not the parties per se that are necessary, but the ability to run for office. In the US anyone can run. A lot of independents and third-party candidates do and win, specially at the local level.

In Cuba (for example), to run for office you must necessarily adhere to the single party orthodoxy. So there's no chance they'll ever elect even a city councilman that disagrees with the central power.

If a single party gets to decide who runs you can't have democracy. So while in theory you don't need multiple parties, in practice you do. Which is why there is not a single example of a single-party democracy.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

One thing the modern CCP leadership learned, though, is that Chairman Mao was a raving lunatic. They claim he was 70% right and 30% wrong; their practice suggests they actually believe he was about 99% wrong.

Of course they could subdue Hong Kong and there's nothing the locals can do about it. But HK plays an important role for China's prosperity, and not only that, any excessively harsh move against HK could scare investors away from other free economic zones such as Shanghai. So while they most certainly will crack down dissent in HK (because they don't know how to act differently), they won't go all Mao on them.

There is a non-zero chance that they will send in troops. It is not Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, Plan D.... but it is there as an option in the back of their minds. They know it would carry a very high price. Remember, in 1989 it was more like months than days before they acted, and we have yet to see whether the HKers have got that level of determination. I have seen people who were in BJ in '89 saying this feels very similar.

In my opinion the big difference is hope. In 1989, the students really thought the Party was on a journey of real reform and anything was possible. They believed the PLA's claim that it was the army that never fired on the people (a common propaganda point from the 30s until, erm, early June 1989). In HK, nobody really expects the Party to respond to the people's demands and knows that the PLA will shoot if pushed too far (very, very far in HK).

If anybody wants to stop talking and act, here is a list of solidarity demonstrations:

I'm currently in London and wondering whether or not to go. I've worked in the Mainland before and would like to do so again, so I'm very reluctant to draw the attention of PRC authorities. But I support the students' stand.

 

[warpus]

Why do you need multiple parties - or any parties at all for that matter?

Consider the case of a single party. There are candidates for leadership roles people vote in the equivalent of a primary for their preferred candidate. That's no less democratic to me than the case in the USA.

Or the case of no party: anyone can be a candidate once they meet certain electoral commission thresholds. No parties, just positions on issues. People still vote for their preferred candidates.

I don't see why political party(s) are required for democracy.

I lived in a system where there was only one political party, and while that's anecdotal, I can explain exactly why it doesn't work: The party in power basically does what it wants, it doesn't have to answer to the people at all. There is no competition at all for ideas, or for anything else.. I'm sure democracy is possible in certain cases, but giving someone or a group of people a monopoly over decision making isn't very conductive to democracy.

In the U.S. you have a first-past-the-post system that ends up with 2 major parties vying for control. That's a lot more democratic, even if in America's case a lot of the politicians are looking after the interests of those who support their campaigns financially rather than the voters.

 

[Borachio]

I suppose supporters of a one party system can argue that there's still various factions jockeying for position within that one party. And a multi-party system can be criticized as being only composed of only one party anyway: it's just nominally multi-party. People can, and do, change party allegiance.

Both systems are composed of professional politicians. What, in the end, is the difference? A political elite sticks it to the rest of us. Credulous as we are.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Why do you need multiple parties - or any parties at all for that matter?

Consider the case of a single party. There are candidates for leadership roles people vote in the equivalent of a primary for their preferred candidate. That's no less democratic to me than the case in the USA.

Or the case of no party: anyone can be a candidate once they meet certain electoral commission thresholds. No parties, just positions on issues. People still vote for their preferred candidates.

I don't see why political party(s) are required for democracy.

If you are a billionaire, you are quite right, it doesn't matter. You can give your million dollars to candidate A or you can give your million dollars to candidate B - whoever will do your bidding, it doesn't matter.

But if you live in Tin Shui Wai and only have $200/month to give, it matters a lot. Let's say you want to support democracy in HK. You give your $200/month to Anson Chan. Great. Maybe her campaign manager asks you to knock on a few doors. Even better. But when Anson Chan retires or resigns because of a personal impropriety, then you're back to square one. The money and the connections are all for naught. But if you've given money to the Democratic Party or People Power, then you've helped to build up a brand that will last, and your details are not in the hands of one person but in the hands of an institution that can phone you and ask to knock on doors for Albert Ho instead.

Individual candidates are great for elites and oligarchies. But the masses can only influence politics through parties (and other institutions like churches and pressure groups).

 

[Leonel]

There is a non-zero chance that they will send in troops. It is not Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, Plan D.... but it is there as an option in the back of their minds. They know it would carry a very high price. Remember, in 1989 it was more like months than days before they acted, and we have yet to see whether the HKers have got that level of determination. I have seen people who were in BJ in '89 saying this feels very similar.

In my opinion the big difference is hope. In 1989, the students really thought the Party was on a journey of real reform and anything was possible. They believed the PLA's claim that it was the army that never fired on the people (a common propaganda point from the 30s until, erm, early June 1989). In HK, nobody really expects the Party to respond to the people's demands and knows that the PLA will shoot if pushed too far (very, very far in HK).

If anybody wants to stop talking and act, here is a list of solidarity demonstrations:

I'm currently in London and wondering whether or not to go. I've worked in the Mainland before and would like to do so again, so I'm very reluctant to draw the attention of PRC authorities. But I support the students' stand.

I think I may go to that Seattle one myself actually. Few people here know I used to live in Hong Kong and even fewer (probably none) know I lived in Hong Kong during British rule, the handover and Chinese rule so it concerns me that stuff is going down in my old hometown.

 

[Quackers]

I back British control over Hong Kong. Some HKians want it.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Expat readers of an English-language newspaper's website.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I back British control over Hong Kong. Some HKians want it.

Attn: PRC-bashers: May I remind you that GB only got Hong Kong via violent oppression and smashing the Chinese during the Opium Wars.

May I remind everyone that the standard of living overall in the PRC continues to rise? The dudes already agreed to universal suffrage, so these perfect-English-speaking students -- who would be pepper-sprayed in the eyes if they were doing this in the US -- actually live freer than 3/5 of the world.

 

[luiz]

It's indeed an undeniable fact that living standards in the PRC have skyrocketed since they embraced Capitalism.

 

[plarq]

While CP had hegemony, Eight parties govern China. Hong Kong is an autononous regional governmen. At its heart, this protest is for what all of the PRC has. But since the HK regional government has granted the one demand... they should all go back to work, imo.

Because in China, people work.

Because in HK there's labor unions but in China they don't.

 

[Borachio]

Didn't Hong Kong do phenomenally well under British rule, though?

I remember reading that at one stage in terms of population it ranked 60th in the world, but was home to the planet's 6th economy. No natural resources beyond the human ones. And scarcely any land to stand on, either.

And the only products they seemed to make, and I'm sure this is totally wrong, were things like artificial flowers and... well... just tat. Inexpensive, but crap, tat.

Oh yeah, and kung fu films. I'd forgotten those. Hmm. Yup. Still tat.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

One Country, Two Systems...

Interesting statement from HK Chief Executive:

HK must capitalize on "One Country", "Two Systems": HK Chief Executive

HONG KONG, Oct. 1 (Xinhua) -- Hong Kong Chief Executive C Y Leung Wednesday said to sustain its development, Hong Kong must capitalize on the combined advantages of "One Country" and "Two Systems", which also fully applies to Hong Kong's constitutional development.
Speaking at the National Day reception, Leung said the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has adopted a decision on issues relating to the selection of the Chief Executive (CE) by universal suffrage, confirming that the CE can be elected through "one person, one vote" from 2017 onward.

"It is understandable that different people may have different ideas about a desirable reform package. But it is definitely better to have universal suffrage than not. It is definitely better to have the CE elected by five million eligible voters than by 1,200 people," he said.

Leung hoped that all sectors of the community will work with the government in a peaceful, lawful, rational and pragmatic manner to duly complete the subsequent consultation and legislative work, and make a big step forward in our constitutional development.

The chief executive also noted that Under "One Country", Hong Kong has the staunch support of the country for its development, while the huge Mainland market presents the city with numerous career opportunities.

While under "Two Systems", Hong Kong's legal and financial systems are different from that of the Mainland, which are more familiar to overseas businesses and professionals and have attracted many foreign enterprises to set up their businesses here.

Besides economic development, the combined advantages of "One Country" and "Two Systems" also come into play in areas such as culture, arts, education and scientific research, he added.

"Hong Kong and the Mainland are closely linked in their development. We must work hand in hand to make the Chinese dream come true," Leung said, quoting a passage from the Conclusion of the White Paper, which says: "Continuously enriching and developing the practice of 'one country, two systems' in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and maintaining long-term prosperity and stability in the region are an integral part of the Chinese dream. "

"It is also a necessary requirement for improving and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics and promoting the modernization of the national governance system and governing capability."

A flag-raising ceremony was also held Wednesday morning at Golden Bauhinia Square to mark the 65th National Day. Leung joined some 2,500 people at the ceremony including invited guest, senior government officials, and members of the public.

 

[Darkwind]

Ok... it has been one month now and students are still sleeping in the streets. Government stance is still the "Grandpa (Beijing) decision is final, face the reality"; the same old story they sing for years.

I do not see students or other protesters going home after achieving absolutely nothing. This movement have already shaken the minds of all of us, the young generation will never trust Beijing again and the trouble has just begun.

Still in deadlock without a way out....

 

[Kyriakos]

Uhhhh because China is ruled by ONE party and with democracy you need multiple parties? They like being in total control.

Beijing's plan is to eventually have the mainland and Hong Kong ruled by the same type of political system. I believe in the agreement they signed with the UK, they have to pay lip to democracy for 50 years... or 40 now, or whatever is left.

So obviously they don't want HK to go in the exact opposite direction. They don't want a huge showdown on their hands when the "flip" happens. They'd prefer to slowly nudge the city into the other direction, but I don't see how they're ever going to accomplish this without serious crackdowns that might very well be counterproductive.

Surely 1 party is even worse/more upfront foolery, but 2 parties is not really in practice something better by much. If some oligarchs have the power to control/place 100 people in one party, chances are they can do it for 200 in two parties.

 

[Snorrius]

I do not see students or other protesters going home after achieving absolutely nothing. This movement have already shaken the minds of all of us, the young generation will never trust Beijing again and the trouble has just begun.

Still in deadlock without a way out....

Why don't the government charge these scoundrels for all the harm they did to the city and business with a hefty bill? This would end so-called "deadlock" immediately.

 

[Borachio]

Ok... it has been one month now and students are still sleeping in the streets. Government stance is still the "Grandpa (Beijing) decision is final, face the reality"; the same old story they sing for years.

I do not see students or other protesters going home after achieving absolutely nothing. This movement have already shaken the minds of all of us, the young generation will never trust Beijing again and the trouble has just begun.

Still in deadlock without a way out....

How long did it take for the authorities to get tough in Tiananmen Square, though? That was more than a month, I think*. And that was in Beijing.

I guess the Chinese government can play a waiting game for a bit longer.

*One month two weeks and 6 days, apparently.