Britain's late Hong Kong democracy
By Dara MacNeil
Britain's passion for democracy was slow to surface in Hong Kong.
It was only in the early 1990s, with the handover to China of the
territory agreed, that Hong Kong's colonial master began to show
evidence of its oft-expressed enthusiasm for democratic
practices.
The result, not surprisingly, is something of a mess. China has
already said it intends to abolish the 60 member Legislative
Council established by the colony's governor, Chris Patten. It is
to be replaced by a similar-sized body, all of whose members will
be appointed by China.
Last year, then British Prime Minister John Major fell just short
of threatening all-out war on China if Beijing went ahead with
the abolition of the Legislative Council, Hong Kong's first
elected body in 150 years of colonial rule. Major charged that
the move would amount to a breach of the 1984 Sino-British pact,
the agreement which formally ratified the territory's return.
However, the Chinese have pointed out that under the 1984 pact
Britain had agreed to handover the territory with its laws
unaltered. They insist that Britain's last minute
'democratisation programme', which began only after the 1984 pact
was signed, constitutes a breach of the accord.
Surprisingly, in the rush to condemn Chinese totalitarianism and
anti-democratic instincts, few seem to have queried precisely why
it took the 'mother of all parliaments' 150 years to deliver an
approximation of democratic rule to one of its colonies. And why
Britain's rush of democratic blood to the head occurred only
after it had agreed the transfer of Hong Kong?
Margaret Thatcher had initially opposed the return of Hong Kong,
despite the existence of the 99-year lease wrung from the Chinese
under duress in the 19th century. However, it was clear that
Britain had not a legal, political or indeed, military leg to
stand on. This was not going to be the Malvinas Part II. So
Thatcher, once convinced of the inevitability of return, promptly
set about negotiating the terms of the transfer -- unbeknownst to
the citizens of Hong Kong. In 1984, the Sino-British Pact was
made public and the people of Hong Kong were presented with a
fait accompli.
Despite their oft-expressed concern for the fate of Hong Kong's
citizenry under Chinese rule, the British refused to grant
passports to all but a tiny minority. In all, a mere 50,000 out
of a population of 6 million were given the option of residence
in Britain. A further 3.25 million people who have British
Dependent Territory Citizenship were refused residence in the
supposed Mother Country.
For most of its 150 year history, Britain ruled Hong Kong in much
the same way as the Chinese intend to. An unelected governor
enjoyed the powers of an absolute monarch. Advice was furnished
by an unelected body of civil servants and businessmen -- all
appointed to their posts by the governor.
The governor ruled with the aid of draconian legislation which
placed severe restrictions on freedom of speech and
demonstration. The Communist Party was banned and membership was
punishable by jail. Simply distributing 'anti-British' political
material meant imprisonment. In addition, all demonstrations were
heavily-controlled.
Leung Kwok Hung, head of the April 5th pro-democracy movement,
was himself arrested no less than eight times by the colonial
administration for participating in "unlawful assemblies."
Thus, a radio reporter speaking from Hong Kong recently explained
that what the people of Hong Kong fear most -- in terms of
restrictions on civil liberties -- was not the imposition of new
curbs by Beijing, but simply the resurrection of the colonial
regime's very effective authoritarian strictures.
Anti-Chinese discrimination was also widespread. For many years,
Chinese were barred from membership of exclusive clubs, such as
the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club, just as they were prohibited
(Apartheid-style) from residing in certain designated areas of
the territory. In addition, people without 'competence in
English' were barred from serving on juries. As the head of Hong
Kong's Law Society recently commented: "Is that a right to trial
by one's peers?"
Only in 1985, after the handover had been agreed, did Britain
begin to relax its grip. Even then its democratic reforms meant
that only half the colony's 6 million population actually enjoyed
the right to vote in last year's Legislative Council elections.
Too little, too late.
Had Britain been serious about democratising Hong Kong, it would
have done so long, long ago by abolishing its own autocratic and
anti-democratic regime and instituting comprehensive reforms,
well before the negotiations with China had begun.
As it is, their half-hearted efforts smack of cynicism. Either
they will provide a suitable platform for Chris Patten to
relaunch his political career in Britain, or will prove a very
useful stick with which to beat China in the years to come.
Thus in many respects, Mr Tung Chee-hwa, the man who takes over
from governor Chris Patten, is simply stepping into a role filled
with ease by 28 previous colonial rulers of Hong Kong.
And as Britain beats a chaotic, disorderly and very dishonourable
retreat, its late conversion to the democratic cause looks ever
more unconvincing. China's authoritarian regime in Hong Kong has
ample historical precedent.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)