|
Starting over LI Che-lan, Linda Department
of Public and Social Administration, |
|
Two weeks after the July 1 rally, it is time to move beyond the
debate over whether there is a governance crisis in The first, coming from the rally organisers and their allies,
interpret the mass turnout as a vote of no confidence in the Tung administration.
The emerging demands go beyond the substantive policy issues of national
security and the economy to the very mechanisms of governance in Regarding Article 23 legislation, public concern has focused not only on the substance of the original bill, but more importantly on the way the government pushed the bill through. Thus, the core issues are how the existing political structure may be reformed to enable more effective communication between the government and the people. Many hope this can be achieved by selecting future chief executives and Legco members through universal suffrage, in 2007 and 2008 respectively. The second major body of opinion comes largely from pro-Beijing media, pro-government legislators and some delegates to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and National People's Congress. They see the first interpretation as an exaggeration of the depth and scope of the public outcry. In their judgment, the public discontent is largely against substantive policy issues such as the national security law, unemployment, the response to Sars and housing. While they acknowledge the need for better communication between government and the community, they do not see the core of public discontent being directed against the system of governance itself. In this view, to ask for universal suffrage and political reform
is a misrepresentation of the original intent of the July 1 marchers.
Radicals in this camp have called such demands disloyal to The two camps do agree that the government faces genuine difficulties in its governance, and that it must seek ways to respond to widespread public discontent. One constructive response would be a systematic collection of views from the public. That is why a constitutional review should start, without further delay, in an open and thorough manner. In particular, the government needs to open its ears to the opposition parties and professional groups that it has failed to consult effectively during the past six years. A useful start would be for the government to form a constitutional review committee, comprising constitutional law experts and political scientists, among others, to advise and assist the government in the conduct of the review. A constitutional review, if properly conducted, would confer much legitimacy on the government by its operation alone. It would also give the government a regularised mechanism to gauge public views as to what specific changes need to be taken. It is time to act together. |