|
Groom tomorrow's leaders today LI Che-lan, Linda Department of Public and Social Administration, City University of Hong Kong |
|
Despite the sustained and increasingly acute public discontent over the government's performance on a range of issues, the local democratic movement has yet to attract a similarly broad-based following. Before the onset of the atypical pneumonia crisis, a summit was due to take place next Monday to spearhead the call for universal suffrage and direct elections for the chief executive in 2007 and all Legco seats in 2008, under the umbrella of the loosely organised Democratic Development Network. A democracy charter has been drafted and a signature campaign is under way. Seminars and discussion forums have been organised and newspaper commentaries written - all intended to stimulate public discussion and debate about democratic development and constitutional reform. So far the results have been unremarkable. There has been surprisingly little association in the popular mindset between, on one hand, the dangers of Article 23 legislation, the tax scandal surrounding Financial Secretary Antony Leung Kam-chung's purchase of a new car, or the clumsiness of the government's handling of the Sars - and the undemocratic nature of the Hong Kong government. Public opinion has, so far, focused mainly on the failings of individual officials, and most criticism has been confined to specific instances involving mishandling of concrete issues. Democracy, it appears, is still too remote and abstract a concept, although people are plainly dissatisfied with the current government and are increasingly frustrated at its unresponsiveness to public views. The democratic movement runs a separate, and lonely, course from those wider social currents built around substantive policy issues. On the surface, the absence of any association between government failures and the need for democracy is unthinkable. Certainly, there has been an increasingly large majority in polls who express support for universal suffrage and direct elections. One Chinese University survey of 1,023 residents conducted last month found that 77 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported direct elections through universal suffrage of the chief executive and all Legco seats. This may suggest a transition from discontent over specific policy to demands for democratisation. But even then, there may still be a large gap between verbal support for more democracy and a commitment to change. One common response from people from all walks of life, when quizzed about the prospects of a more democratic system in Hong Kong is: will it produce better leaders? People were ambivalent about whether replacements could be found for incumbent officials, indicating, above all, their preoccupation with individuals when pondering a change in the system. This makes sense if the mainland is substituted for Hong Kong in this discussion. A major stabilising factor for the central government after 1989 has been the argument that there is no viable alternative to the Communist Party and, therefore, a government with some failings is better than no government. The prospect of social chaos in light of a vacuum of power has been sufficient to deter most of the more liberally minded. Governments need to be staffed, and a democratic government needs even larger numbers to work efficiently. Not only is it necessary to have people to serve in the elected government, but an equal number in opposition is also needed. There can be no democracy if there are no viable alternative leaders. When people do not see any alternatives, they become frustrated and quickly resign themselves to their fate. To enable a shift in the popular mindset, Hong Kong needs a shadow cabinet. The democratic movement needs to be able to put forward a viable alternative - not only an alternative system - but also alternative personalities. They would not only be the opposition leaders, or leaders outside the current government - as in the case of some current Legco members - but they would also need to project a clear public identity. These people would constitute leaders-in-waiting. They would have to be ready to form a new government once the system became a democratic one, assuming they were chosen to lead. Now is the time to find shadow leaders to give the population a real choice. The images of democracy need to be crystallised and made three-dimensional. How better than through the deeds and words of men and women. |