A : “We want democracy!!”
B: “Why?”
A : “It’s good for us”
B : “How?”
A : “What do you mean how??? Everyone says so.”
B : “Who’s everyone?”
A : “I don’t care. I want democracy now!!”
The above conversation never took place. I made it up.
But if a friend of mine was telling me the truth, then perhaps a similar conversation may have actually taken place in the 1960s. In that case, “A” would have been a local Hong Kong Chinese, and “B” would probably have been a British expat in Hong Kong. The location was British ruled Hong Kong.
According to my friend, his uncle was a democracy campaigner. He demanded nothing less than full democracy from the British government. A full functioning democracy with a multi-party system formed by the grassroots, and a 4-yearly general election. He marched on the streets in an impressive show of force, comprising of …. well, one old man and his dumb placard.
I leave it to you to come to your own conclusions on what had happened to him in the end. But just in case you don’t know, Britain had laws that protect the stability of its government in HK. Basically, these laws treat any attempts by the people to overthrow the government as high treason. But not only that, any attempts to incite others to overthrow the government is ALSO treated as high treason.
This means that not only general elections were not possible under British rule, but telling others how wonderful democracy was would (or at least could) have been treated as high treason according to those laws. Unless of course there is only one candidate on your general election ballet paper. Needless to say, that single candidate is of course the government itself.
That may explain why in the 150 years of British rule, HK never had one single protest demonstration for democracy other than those above-mentioned odd cases of one-man show here and there, assuming that they did actually take place.
———————————————-
What democracy? :
But how do you explain the sudden fervor for democracy that was to engulf Hong Kong leading up to the 1997 handover, and still going strongly today? I can understand that true believers of democracy would not hesitate to take whatever opportunity they have to express their views. And the leaving of the British would have provided that opportunity. But anyone who has lived in HK well before the handover knows that these people (if they existed at all) would account for an extremely small percentage of the population.
Back in the old days in HK, democracy was never on the minds of the average person. In fact, I have never known or heard of anyone who had even mentioned this word in any form (except of course from the above story which may not even be real). In those days, it wasn’t like the British had to point a gun at your head to stop you from demanding democracy. All they had to do was not promote the idea, and the people never bothered to ask.
So where did this sudden fervor for democracy come from? It happened in large scale, and almost overnight. Surely, if the masses love democracy that much, why was there never even a hint that this was so dear to their hearts in the entire 150 years of British rule.
Clearly, the surprising suddenness of the eruption of democracy fervour in HK leading up to the 1997 handover removes any doubt that this could have been a natural process of evolution in the Chinese psyche. There can be no doubt that someone or something was behind all this. The question is who was it, and what was the motive.
Anyone who had followed the news back then should have a pretty good idea who may be behind the sudden sea change. If you happen to not know, then I am happy to let you come up with your own conclusions, as that is not exactly what I want to explore with you today.
It is however interesting to note that during the entire 150 years of British rule, the so-called “free” broadcast media in HK had never promoted the idea and benefits of democracy to the people of HK. Then come the deadline for HK handover, all of a sudden it went out in force to promote democracy and a multi-party system to the public in sync with all government efforts. It even gave free air time to debates in the HK legislative council, thus educating the public about the potential benefits of having a powerful full-functioning legislative council that is independent of the government.
Perhaps this earlier lack of democratic debates and education is not surprising given that the government holds the key to media licences. It would be unthinkable to find your multi-million dollar media empire suffer a sudden death overnight because you accidentally educated the public of a new way to overthrow the British HK government. High treason carries very high penalties.
————————————————-
No, it’s YOU stupid :
But that’s beside the point. The point is what were YOU doing? The HK media had its hands tied behind its back. But NOT you!
If you do a simple Google search on blogs relating to China’s government, you will find all kinds of accusations and condemnations directed at the Chinese government. The average person, especially those in the West, is hellbent on condemning China’s government on almost all topics under the sun. The majority of these often eventually find its way to the topic of democracy, or rather the lack of it. This is often accompanied by how unimaginable life is in the Middle Kingdom because of that lack.
But here comes the question. If life was that unbearable without democracy, why did you not condemn the British government for stifling democracy in HK. If democracy was such a fundamental human right, why did you not defend human rights for the people of HK. Clearly, if democracy was that good, why not give them some. 150 years is a very long time for such an “abuse” of fundamental human rights.
Perhaps the real question is what is the real motive behind all this accusations at the Chinese government on the issue of democracy. Ask yourself these questions. If we were to switch the word “China” with the word “Britain”, would you still have done the same thing?
In other words, would you have been so happy to see Chinese without political freedom for the next 150 years? What about restraining from condemning China on the issue of democracy for the next 150 years? Would you not even mention the words “democratic mandate” for the next 150 years? But perhaps more importantly, would you pressure a British controlled Middle Kingdom for democratic reform? Something that no-one seemed to want to do for HK before 1997.
The story doesn’t end there. If it was just British HK, you may brush it aside by saying it was a once off mistake on the part of the “democracy” campaigners. But ALL Western colonies in the entire world never had any democracy. Yet, not a single soul preached the concept of democratic mandate to these colonials. Not a single “democracy” campaigner pressured any Western government on the issue of democracy.
One may argue that a colony cannot by definition have democracy. But that hardly justifies the double standards. You either believe in democracy or you don’t. Clearly, the word “democracy” plays no part in these accusations. The word “China” is everything. Once you replace the word “China” with the word “Britain”, or any other friendly Western colonial powers for that matter, these accusations would automatically fade away.
————————————————-
Let the game begin :
Perhaps this is just a game between rival powers. A new kind of war game. A game where you, the so-called “democracy” campaigner would happily and voluntarily play the foot soldiers for one side. The objective of the game is of course not to liberate, but to attack, for liberating would be much too easy. One could easily have done that to HK plus a dozen other places in the last few decades.
As the June 4th date nears, the “democracy” war game will inevitably heat up. Accusations and condemnations of China is going to come from all directions. And “democracy” is going to be the ammunition for this war game. And you, the “democracy” campaigners are of course the foot soldiers sitting in front of your computers waiting for the game to begin.
At the right moment, you are going to fire the first shot containing “democratic mandates” and “general elections”. I will then counter with “HK”, “Saudi Arabia”, and what have you, followed by “hypocrisy”. All of a sudden out of nowhere, someone kicks in the “F” word. Everyone pauses…. You then respond with “I am just against the government, not the people”. And I counter with “I love you too”. As for this article, well …. let’s just say it will be conveniently forgotten so that we can all pretend to have some “unpredictability” in this otherwise boring game.
So the clock is now ticking. In less than 2 weeks time, history will repeat itself. The conversation 40 years ago between A and B mentioned at the beginning of this article will see the light of day once again. But this time, the role is reversed. “A” is YOU, and “B” is me.
A : “You must have democracy!!”
B: “Why?”
A : “It’s good for you”
B : “How?”
A : “What do you mean how??? Everyone says so.”
B : “Who’s everyone?”
A : “I don’t care. You must have democracy now!!”
.
ad ALL: see f.e. http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/senegal.htm
Real Name,
Now that I have more coments on the blogsite from others, I am happy to respond to your post.
The article you cited does not in any way counter any of the arguments in my article.
Democracy is not just a label we throw around. It needs to be meaningful. The universal suffrage mentioned in that article relates to French NATIONAL elections, not Senegalese general elections. These elections are meaningless for the local colonials of Senegal.
In other words, no matter how the slaves and indigenous people of Senegal vote, they will simply get a French government ruling over the French colony. Whichever Frenchman gets into office, their loyalty would be with France, not Senegal. As far as the local people in Senegal is concerned, they wouldn’t care any less who was in power thousands of miles away in France. The general election ballet papers may as well be used for a game of naughts and crosses.
When I was in Hong Kong, I couldn’t care less if the HK governor was Mr X or Mr Y. To me, it would still be just the British HK government. I am sure the same would be true for the Senegalese.
it was just first found example, i have no high ideals about level of democracy in senegal
yes, (today) also local level, civic society etc. is important
i can understand when situation in senegal colony led to independence, anyway i’m not sure if you will reuse your comments also f.e. in case of elections of deputy from west china to beijing parliament
they had chance to elect own person to present their point of view miles away
Real Name,
RE : “not sure if you will reuse your comments …”
There is a big difference here. NO-ONE (including myself) has ever said China has universal suffrage. But that is exactly what the article you quoted was saying for Senegal, even though it is meaningless.
i also did not say it has, there was if
if one day will be this in china will you feel correct say the same?
(meaningless … thousands of miles away)
Real Name,
I think if and when that day comes, distance itself would not be an issue because Canada, for example, is much bigger than China.
But I don’t know if I can say the same for some of the minority groups. What I do know is they would be MUCH better off now than if China was a democracy.
and now imagine british should have similar feeling to honkong comparing to system in rest of china
No, Real name. The 2 are NOT comparable.
The reason I said what I said in the previous post is because at the moment, the Chinese government does a lot for the minorities in China (regardless of whether your media tells you or not) and tries very hard to promote the idea of harmony.
But if China was a democracy, the majority will always win, at the cost of the minorities. And the authorities, being answerable to the majority, would very likely scrap some (if not many) of the benefits and favourable treatment that the minorities are now getting. And this is not even considering the possibility of the ultra-nationalist elements taking power.
The case for HK is not the same. If HK had democracy during the British years, it would be the people of HK ruling HK.
no
do you think minorities in my country have worse treatment than in china?
that here are more reasons for something like march 2008 in china?
maybe have a look at
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Ben-Hillman/2773
if you think it is enemy’s view (btw. have a look at author’s profile) have a look at recent chinese report https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df4nrxxq_91ctcf6sck
especialy nationalism is of CCP politics how make people believe in them
surely “if HK…”, it is not to oposite to my speaking british could feel HK people have better that rest of china because of them (british) there
Real Name,
Just before you carry this too far. Do understand that the underlying message here is NOT about HK or Britain. They were simply used as an example to drive my points. I could have used other examples. The reason I used this example is because I myself am originally from HK, and therefore it is natural for me to talk about HK.
Just to make it clear, I am neither for nor against Britain giving democracy to HK. I believe colonies by definition cannot have democracy. So it is NOT about Britain. It is about the hypocrises of the so-called “true” believers of democracy throwing accusations at China.
Remember, this is a China blog. We are talking about China.
remember i agreed with you in double-faces already, i just think present system in china is not better in this
Hi everyone,
Just letting you know that part 2 of this Democracy series will be published tomorrow.
This is the final part of the seies, and may be my last article on this site for the foreseeable future.
Thank you
Real Name,
Thanks for the info. I just like to wait for 1 or 2 more comments before I respond to your post. I like to see what my readers think.
(Hopefully more people will read this after the weekend)
Real Name,
See my response above.
Hi Chan,
Interesting post, I found my way here via Peter Foster’s blog.
I had no urge to enter the fray on his comments board as, coming from a ‘democratic’ country myself, his points are nothing new to me, neither are the inevitable Chinese responses.
You seem prepared to stand back for issues a little and give them some critical thought, perhaps you may be able to clarify a couple terms that confuse me and opine on some points that I feel seem to get missed in the wider debate.
The moral of this post seems to be that Britain is in no position to lecture China on the wonders of democracy when they have so brazenly flouted its ideals right under her nose. Touché. A fine example of real politik national self interest.
However it doesn’t take the argument further.
What I would like to hear more about is the not the many and woeful shortcoming of ‘western democracy’ of which I am already painfully aware but the virtues (good or bad) of the Chinese experience from a Chinese perspective. Do Chinese actually feel their freedom of expression is impinged on by the government? Do they feel the feel their government is accountable to the people? What direction is Chinese governance moving in and where will it be in, say, 25 years?
I here about these things ad nauseum from ‘western’ commentators but very little from Chinese commentators.
What do you mean by ‘western media’? It’s not directly referred to in this post but I gather this blog is aimed at providing a alternative view to it.
When you say ‘China’ do this mean the nation or the CCP?
I must say I also take exception to your proposition that “… ALL Western colonies in the entire world never had any democracy. Yet, not a single soul preached the concept of democratic mandate to these colonials. Not a single “democracy” campaigner pressured any Western government on the issue of democracy.” – New Zealand, a British colony, was the first country to grant universal suffrage, in 1897, and was not fully independent until 1947. Universal suffrage was fought for tooth and nail by the disenfranchised and their sympathizers.
look forward to your thoughs 🙂
personaly i’m interested if ALL was idea of your own or something widely accepted in china (it is first comment of this kind i know)
They are ALL my ideas. But I guess there are plenty of people with similar mindset as myself (both inside and outside China).
HK example was interesting
it confirmates my observation of power nature and necessity do not give it up
having more such uncles maybe you can get it sooner
Hi “Mussel boy”,
Thank you very much for coming here to comment.
Unfortunately, there are too many points in your post for me to respond to in one go. So I will just respond to 3 of them for now, and then come back again for the others.
——————————
(1) RE : “The moral of this post ….”
Thanks for the compliment. Actually the underlying message of the article is more about the wider world than just Britain and HK. They were simply used as an example to illustrate the struggle between different forces, with “democracy” being used as a tool.
(2) RE : “What direction is Chinese governance moving in and where will it be in, say, 25 years?”
25 years is a very long time, especially for China. China is changing very fast in many respects. The Western reports mainly focus on changes of China’s economic and political status, and of course also its appearance. But the political landscape is in fact also changing very fast. This is seldom reported in the West. For example, did you know that 75% of China’s 1.3 billion people today elect their local village leaders in open, competitive elections (very much like the city council members in Western countries). In the last 25 years, 600,000 villages across China moved toward open, competitive elections. This is just the 1st step.
The Chinese leadership is clearly trying to move the country towards some form of democracy that is perhaps not too different from ours in the West. What the system would eventually look like, we will need to wait and see. But things are changing faster than you think.
(3) RE : “New Zealand … was the first country to grant universal suffrage”
You would need to give me more info on this before I can respond. The “universal suffrage” you mentioned here: Is that the same as the one mentioned in the article quoted by “Real Name”?
Mussel boy,
Let me continue from my last post, and respond to the remaining parts of your post.
—————————————————–
RE : “What I would like to hear more about is ….”
I will be writing part 2 of my 2-part democracy series this weekend. Hopefully, if that article doesn’t answer your questions, it will at least give us a better framework upon which we can explore those issues. So please wait for that 2nd article.
RE : “What do you mean by western media”
I haven’t actually mentioned about “western media” on this blogsite (at least so far). I guess you’ve probably got this from my comments on the Telegraph site.
When I talk about the “western media”, I am normally referring to the western mainstream media, especially the ones that report in a way that conforms to the mainstream views about China. Perhaps my oversimplified terminology is a little misleading. That’s why I haven’t used it here so far.
RE : “When you say ‘China’ do this mean the nation or the CCP”
It depends on the context. In this particular article, “China” simply refers to whatever the side throwing the accusations is referring to.
“did you know that 75% of China’s 1.3 billion people today elect their local village leaders in open, competitive elections (very much like the city council members in Western countries)”… Well, almost like, with the difference that there is only one party. Wu Qing in a recent dialogue program (CCTV9) said quite clearly. China needs democracy, real democracy. What I heard from friends from the countryside is that that’s not real democracy, but rubber stamping by the people. I may be wrong, but then I will need to think why many different people from different places of the country confirmed this situation.
About HK and the British: That’s ok, it what a colony was supposed to be. Why did HK not fight back? That’s the question that may shed some light. May be, just may be, a foreign dog was better than the local lion in the heads of HKers. If they had to choose between British Colonial Rule and the CCP (and the corpses flowing down in the Pearl delta every once in a while in synchrony with political campaigns), probably they chose the former. Of course the British will not help to shoot their feet promoting open democracy… but HK, as you said, did not fight for it (and Communist China, as recent studies show, tried to make HK to revolt against the metropoli, but it did not succeed -they got better support-base in Macao though).
For me, and today 2009, is simply a question: why can’t HK choose their own government? Even more, according to your statement “that 75% of China’s 1.3 billion people today elect their local village leaders in open, competitive elections”: THEN… Whay HK can not be part of that 75%? Weird, weird.
Kailing,
(1) RE : “… there is only one party”
No, I was not talking about national general elections. The elections in the villages are for choosing the person to represent you and manage your local affairs. These are like the city council members in Western countries. It wouldn’t make very much difference what political label we give them. Ultimately it is a free choice for the best person within the confines of the overall political environment. This is just one step in the process of evolution for China rather than an end result. If you have to criticize every step in between, then you will still be criticizing in 20 years time when their standard of living and well being is well above yours.
(2) RE : “… rubber stamping …”
No, this is certainly NOT rubber stamping. The whole process is transparent, and very similar to the council elections in the West. These elections are overseen by American NGOs based in China.
(3) RE : “About HK and the British: That’s ok …”
No, you missed the point. This article is NOT about HK or Britain. They were simply used as an example to illustrate double standards, and more importantly, the struggles between different forces, with “democracy” being used as a tool.
Whether the people in HK fought for democracy in the old days is beside the point. The point is NOT about them, it is about YOU, the so-called “true” believers of democracy.
(4) RE : “…and today 2009 … why can’t HK choose…”
Again, this article is NOT about HK. I am neither for nor against HK choosing anything.
hanjians listen up
Democracy is just westerners and foreigners pushing their ideals in China so they can influence more our culture
look at japan, look at korea, look at all the other asian countries and what has happened to their culture when “democracy” took over
They become completely westernized and lose their identity
is this what you want in china???
China has never used democracy in history, and everyghin worked out fine, we were even the best for most of history recorded
democratic countries are weak and can’t make any decisions without offensing small groups of people everywhere
so what if china steps on a few people? there are 1.3 billion chinese you can’t please everyone and you will never get anywhere without some hard decisions
so we dont need democracy, and i hope democracy never comes to China
dadao,
finaly someone said it:
china lost not because stayed in slavery and feudalism but because abolished it
so back to slavery, down with all republican reforms
don’t forget destructive role of nothing producing trade and free movement of persons, in name of culture return from western to classic scales in music
and down with goverment who’s destroying rests of old times
dadao,
You are entitled to your opinion but i respectfully disagree with many of your comments.
1. (quote): “look at japan, look at korea, look at all the other asian countries … They become completely westernized and lose their identity…”
Your opinion isnt exactly correct when you say that they’ve ‘lost’ their culture. Their cultures have changed, but change happens to culture over time anyway, and their cultures are still quite distinct from most European and American cultures.
2. (quote): “China has never used democracy in history, and everyghin worked out fine, we were even the best for most of history recorded”
Thats a fallacy, just because something has worked in the past doesnt mean it would work well now. I also disagree with your opinion that China was “the best” but thats simply my own opinion so i digress.
3. (quote): “democratic countries are weak and can’t make any decisions without offensing small groups of people everywhere.”
This may be true of some democratic countries but your generalization of democracies is a fallacy and ignores the fact that some of the most powerful countries in the world have democratic systems.
@ Chan,
That was a good article which i enjoyed reading, thank you for writing it.
“Clearly, the surprising suddenness of the eruption of democracy fervour in HK leading up to the 1997 handover removes any doubt that this could have been a natural process of evolution in the Chinese psyche. There can be no doubt that someone or something was behind all this. The question is who was it, and what was the motive.”
Here we have the mentality of the blogger in a nutshell–HK people must’ve been led astray, like little sheep, if they suddenly called for democracy. What other motive could there have been, if not for some black hand behind the scenes?
The people who fled Communist China for HK prior to ’97 surely weren’t led by the nose…they were voting with their feet and they transformed HK from a community of few hundred thousands in 1949 to the millions it is today. These people knew the system in the mainland and many of them chose to leave (again) in the run-up to ’97, this time ditching HK for the safety of many Western countries.
Many Western liberals did question why Hongkong during the British era was not democratised. Rightly so–this is an enduring black mark on the British record. But some would argue that to do so would allow the re-emergence of KMT~CCP feud in HK, and subsequently armed intervention from the PRC (or RoC). How Hongkongers of that time would view such a possibility is beyond me as a newcomer, but it wouldn’t surprise me if, as refugees from the mainland, they made the decision not to rock the boat.
The blogger uses a boneheaded, straw man example of HK to criticise the fact that there are mindless people advocating democracy, and then claims that his article is not about HK. No less a figure than Mark Young, Governor of Hongkong in 1946, proposed wide-reaching democractic reforms, but his proposals were not popular for the reason cited above.
Why is HK not democratic, or China? What does democracy actually mean to individual people? How democratic are the systems of “Western” countries? These are complicated questions, perhaps too complicated for the rhetorical excess (“not a single soul preached the concept of democratic mandate to these colonials.”) of this blog post.
Jonathan,
No need to get so offensive. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion. You state yours and I state mine. I am happy to have a debate with you, but not in a hostile way.
——————————–
(1) RE : “… who fled Communist China for HK prior to ‘97 …”
That is just NOT true. Most of the people who call for democracy today did NOT flee the mainland. The group you refer to represent a very tiny minority. It doesn’t in ANY way account for the sudden eruption of democracy fervour amongst the populace. This shows how much you know about HK.
(2) RE : “… some would argue that to do so …(granting democracy to HK)”
There are always some who don’t think the same as the majority in any debate. But that is not the point. The point of the article is for the great majority of the people who regard themselves as “true” believers of democracy, why did they not fight for democracy for, or on behalf of, the HK people when HK was ruled by Britain.
(3) RE : “The blogger uses a boneheaded, straw man example of HK to criticise the fact that there are mindless people advocating democracy”
The fact is there ARE mindless people advocating democracy. But I am of course not saying anyone who advocates democracy is mindless.
(4) RE : “… and then claims that his article is not about HK”
Well, this article IS NOT about HK. The example of HK was simply used to illustrate my points about double standards and hypocrisy. Had I used another country or region as example, you could still use the same logic to accuse me. Your accusattions are endless. The only way you would stop the attacks would be if I didn’t use any examples. I don’t think that is very sensible of you.
(5) RE : “too complicated for the rhetorical excess …. of this blog post.”
As I have said many times before in my comments, this post is NOT about HK, Britain, or any of the other things you’ve named. Democracy is a very large and complex topic. Even if I was to cover all of these things you named in this part 1 of my 2 part series, you could easily accuse me again of ALL the other things you haven’t named here. You can use this same logic to attack any authors on this planet who writes on the topic of democracy.
I should not have used the word “boneheaded” in my post. Sorry.
I will continue to plead for people to simply visit Mainland China today, and see for themselves why I am in near total agreement with how Chan is framing these issues.
China is evolving into a system that is really neither “old” communism, or “modern” democracy – and from what I have seen of her first-hand, especially in response to one of history’s largest natural disasters, she needs to be commended for this timely and revolutionary (peaceful) transformation.
Considering the current world economic crisis, which had its origins in a system that allowed mortgage originators to bundle up loans with little responsibility, label those instruments AAA, then sell them off based on “trust” in a system that was supposed to be “fair” – well, we might want to show a little respsonsibility and humility before we are ready to “tell” China how they should “be.”
Hi Michael,
Welcome back! Great to hear from you again.
Hope all is well with you and your business.
i just want note bad loans (in china from state banks to state owned enterprises) were not just western problems, already were waves of removing them from (state) banks in china
have a look at graph here
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124025046322435795.html
do you think just now doubled number of good projects banks can support?
A very interesting blog recommended by one poster in British-born Chinese (BBC) forum.
Thank you very much Taikor
Hi! I am new to this forum.
Hope to learn and share. Thanks!
Thanks for joining, abbyabagail.
( For some reason, WordPress blocked your comment. That is why your comment did not appear earlier. Hopefully, it’s fixed now )
What a wonderful forum, my first time . I will be back.