Rough road on reforms

By Stephen Vines
The Standard
December 9, 2005

While anti-democrats scramble to come up with new and ingenious ways to explain away last Sunday's magnificent rally, they face even greater problems in coming to terms with the new political realities that arise in its wake.

First, it is clear that the constitutional reforms as drafted by the government have no hope of being endorsed by the legislature without significant amendment. If the rally did nothing else, it will have persuaded the waverers in the pro- democracy camp to maintain their opposition to this modest plan.

Secondly, the government seems to lack a "Plan B," if the legislation goes down. Its main strategy is to blame the democrats for lack of progress but the business of governments is to govern and they cannot blame obstruction for not doing their job without prompting the conclusion that they are no longer in command.

Thirdly, Chief Executive Donald Tsang needs to carefully reassess his political tactics. It seems clear that his highly unusual television address was responsible for swelling the numbers attending the rally. Tsang must have believed that his strong showing in public opinion polls would suffice to persuade people to stay away.

This demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how politics works.

Tsang may well be popular, especially in contrast to his predecessor, but personal popularity cannot necessarily be equated with support for policy. There was a notable absence of hostility toward Tsang at the demonstration but considerable opposition to his policies. If he maintains a commitment to deeply unpopular policies, he is in danger of losing the personal support he has cultivated.

Fourthly, and perhaps the most intriguing, was the emergence of Anson Chan, the former chief secretary of administration, as a rally participant. Chan is not only very popular but carries considerable authority as a leader. We can safely discount the absurd notion that she intends to run in the next so called chief executive "election" because she knows full well that most of the small band of those permitted to vote are more likely to shun her for her stance than support her.

But that does not mean that she will abstain from a more active role in politics. Indeed she was careful not to rule this out. If, as seems possible, she intends to participate in the work of the pro-democracy camp she will do much to sway middle-of-the-road opinion.

Some people who are sympathetic to democratic ideas remain wary of the camp's more high profile leaders; they are likely to draw comfort from Chan's presence, which would surely help to consolidate the democrats' position as the leading political position in Hong Kong.

It may not be an edifying fact of political life but it is an inescapable truth that political movements require strong leaders. The pro-democracy camp have many admirable people on their side, but none has emerged as a charismatic leader.

It is arguable that the democratic cause has been held back by the failure to produce a single leader for people to rally behind. Chan might just be this person but she has no history of support for democracy. She has shown a marked ambivalence in assuming an active role in politics so caution is required before running away with this idea.

The anti-democrats also lack a credible leader, although there are a number of contenders.

Another significance of the rally is to have laid bare the level of disarray that also prevails in this camp. Leading anti-democrat personalities, such as Stanley Ho and Gordon Wu, added much to the sum of human gaiety by contradicting their own statements within days of making them.

Gordon Wu

Yet, aside from the humor, it is clear that a split has emerged between those who will tolerate no concession to public opinion and the more pragmatic who believe some concessions must be made.

This leaves Tsang in a difficult position. Indications from Beijing suggest that the Communist Party leadership is numbered among the hardliners who will insist he holds the line without deviation. Wild hopes Beijing would endorse a timetable for universal suffrage were conclusively quashed Wednesday.

No one pretends that it will be easy for Tsang to act in defiance of the leadership but, assuming that he believes what he says about democracy, there is every reason to hope that he will use his considerable powers of persuasion to convince the leadership that this bone- headed policy is wrong.

Will he do so or will he meekly follow the dictates from up north?

It is no exaggeration to say that we have reached a watershed in political development and it is becoming hard to duck the big questions of the day.

The government has the power to defy majority public opinion but if it insists on so doing it is setting a course for confrontation. Is this really the way forward for an administration that keeps talking about the need for harmony?