Democracy in China?

While I was at the Fulbright conference in Hong Kong, I attended a very interesting forum on Hong Kong-mainland relations.  The relationship has been fraught with tension since the handover in 1997 over the various issues including the push for universal suffrage, which would allow Hong Kong's citizens to democratically elect Hong Kong's Chief Executive(essentially the highest ranking politician presiding over Hong Kong).  Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy due to the one country two systems policy (一國兩制) in most affairs with the exception of foreign policy and defense.  While Beijing and Hong Kong have been at odds, the issue of universal suffrage has become a greater internal debate among Hong Kongers about Hong Kong's conflicting image as a part of China and as an autonomous area with distinctive way of life. 

The analysis of the subtle shifts happening within Hong Kong political groups and the overall political mood during the forum was especially interesting to me.  There are two main factions, the Democratic Party of Hong Kong (民主黨) which is pro-Beijing and those making up the pan-democratic camp such as the League of Social Democrats (社會民主連線) and Civic Party (公民黨).  The pan-democratic camp is much less organized in comparison to the pro-Beijing faction which has been pushing for closer ties with Beijing and promoting pro-Beijing economic interests in Hong Kong.  There is serious doubt by both politicans and the public that universal suffrage will be achieved by 2017 as agreed to by Beijing because of the severe disagreements among the various groups on how democracy should be implemented in Hong Kong and whether it is even possible(check out this article here).  The Beijing government does not want to give moderate democrats any concessions; it would certainly oppose the referendum plan which Hong Kong democrats have threatened to invoke, but at the same time it must respect Hong Kong's autonomy during the 50 years after the handover.

The definition and scope of Hong Kong's autonomy has  morphed as a consequence of the changing political landscape.  While the activity of civic groups in Hong Kong clearly demonstrate the Hong Kong public's vested interest in politics, speakers at the conference noted that the current political mood has become surly and even outright angry.  Civil discourse in Hong Kong has a history of being...civil.  In comparison to the pan-democratic groups, post 1980's student and NGO groups have been increasingly showing their frustration with the collusion between big business tycoons and the central government to consolidate the interests of elites and economic interests which aggravates societal inequalities.  At the other extreme, the increase of nationalism for the mainland highlights various cultural, political and economic paradoxes within Hong Kong society.  Within these contrasting and conflicting features emerges an image of a Hong Kong with an uncertain future.  How much autonomy should Hong Kong have?  Does this include political autonomy and a high degree of control over it's political affairs which have international ramifications due to Hong Kong's special history and current sociopolitical structures?  How does Hong Kong maintain its autonomy while balancing the mainland government's goals for Hong Kong and China's future as a whole?

For more information on the debate for universal suffrage in Hong Kong, please take a look at this article.