The pro-democracy movement believed that Beijing and the HKSAR government had no sincere intention to implement genuine democracy in Hong Kong, while the pro-Beijing united front attacked the pro-democracy groups for blocking progress in electoral reforms and delaying the democratisation on process. The defeat of the HKSAR government’s electoral reform package meant that the existing electoral methods would continue to apply. They were also against the retention of appointed and ex-officio members in the District Councils. They could not accept that both the central government and the HKSAR government had refused to provide a concrete roadmap and timetable for the implementation of universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive and the entire legislature. Later in November 2005, the Chief Executive also initiated discussions on the models, roadmap, and timetable for implementing universal suffrage through the appointed Commission on Strategic Development.ĥ In the following month, pro-democracy legislators vetoed the electoral reform package. The package suggested including all District Council members in the Election Committee for the election of the Chief Executive, 4 and expanding the Legislative Council from 60 to 70 members, with one additional seat for each of the five geographical constituencies, and another five to be elected from among the District Council members. 4 At that time, Hong Kong was divided into 18 districts, with District Councils serving as local advi (.)Ĥ The HKSAR government in October 2005 announced a package of proposals to reform the electoral systems starting in 2007/2008.The progress or lack of progress in electoral reforms An administration threatened by legitimacy deficit will encounter increasing difficulty in its provision of economic development and social services, thus forcing itself into a vicious circle as unsatisfactory performance further worsens its legitimacy deficit. It argues that the deterioration and divisions within the pro-democracy movement may not be political gains for the pro-Beijing united front, as political and social polarisation poses serious problems for effective governance as well. This article intends to examine the challenges facing the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong today, as well as the general political and social situation in the territory. This split reflects increasing polarisation in Hong Kong society as well, as the majority becomes more and more apathetic and a significant minority demonstrates rising frustration and anger, not only over the stagnation in the democratisation process, but also over the widening gap between rich and poor. A political movement that has been in opposition since its birth in the 1980s and that has no prospect of securing political power has inevitably become divided in strategy and tactics, with one segment acting in moderation and pursuing negotiations with the authorities, and another segment opting for radicalism. 1 Further, in the eyes of Hong Kong people, the Chinese leadership and the HKSAR government are not interested in the promotion of genuine democracy, and its implementation has now become uncertain. Rather, the divisions within the pro-democracy movement overall suggest that a permanent split within the movement has become inevitable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |