As protests in Hong Kong erupt in wake of the introduction of controversial National Security Law, the one country, two systems approach appears to be a relic of the past, in spite of Beijing’s claims to the contrary. Increased police powers, trial without jury and immunity for Chinese agents operating in Hong Kong are all part and parcel of what has been described as ‘a birthday present for Hong Kong’ by one Chinese official. Hong Kong has one of the freest economies in the world but its political system now seems unable to support this. As many pro-democracy leaders leave the island in fear of their lives, the price of freedom has risen inexorably for this small city state.
I arrived in Hong Kong in 2014. As a new member of Hong Kong’s large expat community, I remember making my way down to the streets of Mong Kok, one of the centers of the so-called Umbrella Revolution. A large, working man’s district, Mong Kok is known among tourists for its street markets. The ordered, peacefulness of the protests was difficult to appreciate until seen first-hand. Students had set up desks in order to do their homework with tents and bottles of water neatly stored for later use. All agreed that this was ‘typical Hong Kong’ – orderly and law-abiding to the extreme. These protests eventually petered out as increasing numbers of the city’s residents grew alarmed about the economic consequences of movements like Occupy Central that brought the CBD to a standstill.
Hong Kong’s colonial history is not China’s
Although Hong Kong is geographically and ethnically part of China, this small territory has enjoyed a very different history, at least for the last couple of centuries. Under British control for more than 150 years, Hong Kong developed in quite a different manner from mainland China, which came under Communist rule in 1949. With British handover in 1997, Hong Kong became a special administrative region within China. This meant that for the next 50 years, at least, the territory would have its own mini-constitution, called the Basic Law.
Under Basic Law various rights including an independent legal system, based on the English Common Law, multiple political parties, free speech and freedom of assembly were guaranteed. But the word of the law and the spirit of the law can diverge. Since 1997, a variety of interpretations of these laws by Beijing have clashed with those of Hong Kong citizens. This has led to numerous protests over the years as Hong Kongers have seen their special rights hollowed out by interference from Beijing.
Greater integration, greater economic prosperity?
The one country, two systems mantra, is one which Beijing has repeatedly reinforced in its approach to Hong Kong. Building on notions of shared ethnicity and a common desire for economic prosperity, the Chinese Communist Party has made no secret of the fact that it sees this approach as a vehicle for peaceful, prosperous integration. Hong Kong and Macau are set to play key roles in an ambitious economic development plan released in February this year. The region, termed the Greater Bay Area (GBA), incorporates 11 cities, of which the 9 least developed are in Guangdong province.
The GBA plan is designed to build a cooperative framework between Hong Kong, Macau and Guangdong to facilitate integration. Such suggestions have understandably given rise to concern. The GBA is an excellent example of how the mainland views prosperity and integration as synonymous. It fits very well with the long-term approach of the Chinese Communist Party – prioritize economic growth and prosperity and this will foster the necessary loyalty and contentment among citizens. Why would such an approach not work with Hong Kong?
The price of freedom
The problem is political . Specifically political freedom. The kind which Hong Kong’s Basic Law was designed to provide. Last year’s protests were triggered by an attempt to push through a controversial extradition law. But this soon led to demands for universal suffrage which was promised them in 2017 but never materialised. Some even demanded the liberation of Hong Kong itself. Although the most vocal and violent protesters are found among the younger generation – one expat onlooker described a violent protest in Sha Tin, as ‘a massive temper tantrum with a load of kids – underlying problems run deep. Since hand-over, economic inequality in Hong Kong has grown. In one of the richest economies in the world, social systems are remarkably underdeveloped. Hong Kongers increasingly see this situation as a result of indifferent leadership imposed by Beijing.
For the younger generation the situation is intolerable. One Hong Kong student, 19 year old Frances Hui, wrote, ‘ I am from a city owned by a county that I don’t belong to’. The demands of young pro-democracy leaders like, Joshua Wong, highlight the increasing ideological differences between Hong Kong and mainland China. Beijing has very little experience dealing with such protests. The Communist Party’s response has typically been immediate and violent suppression. Tienanmen Square is a case in point as are the mass internment camps for China’s Uighur Muslims. With the implementation of the National Security law, Beijing has made their position clear. Dissent will not be tolerated.
A number of local commentators suggested more democratic ways of de-escalating the violence. These included investigating police violence, re-evaluating the Basic Law and addressing the housing shortage, as a start. Protesters called for a full and independent investigation into police brutality. However a panel of international experts invited to work with the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) stepped down as it became clear that the city’s watchdog did not have sufficient powers to fulfill its function.
The doublethink of ‘one country, two systems’
Beijing is unaccustomed to democratic compromise. Unquestioning loyalty and obedience from citizens is the norm. It is also what the Communist Party system relies upon to remain in power. And there’s the rub. One country will struggle to support two systems as radically different as those of Hong Kong and its mainland guardian. The days of such an approach were thus numbered from the start. Taiwan‘s President, Tsai Ing-wen, recently stated that the one country, two systems approach had failed in Hong Kong and would not work for Taiwan. Perhaps obviously, she pointed out that democracy and authoritarianism cannot co-exist in the same country.
Beijing has argued to the contrary. Clearly it did not expect its doublethink to fail to convince the residents of Hong Kong. Each month has brought renewed determination from pro-democracy protesters, in a manner deeply unsettling for the CCP. Slogans like, ‘Give me Liberty or give me Death‘ testify just how determined. Joshua Wong correctly predicted the death of ‘one country, two systems’ in Hong Kong before Beijing made it true. In an article for the New York Times the young activist wrote, ‘No matter what happens to the protest movement, we will reclaim the democracy that belongs to us, because time is on our side.’ Perhaps, but for Hong Kong, it just got a lot shorter.
