Forms of democracy have changed greatly over time
Updated: 2014-06-11 06:38
By Yan Ming(HK Edition)
|
|||||||
The word democracy is originally derived from the Greek word demokratia, from demos - "the people" and kratia - "power or rule".
Democracy is a form of government involving the equal participation by eligible citizens in the legislative process through voting, by one person, one ballot. One of its fundamental principles is majority rule, because consensus is not always achievable. Other basic principles include equality and the rule of law.
It started as direct democracy, evolving into representative democracy when mass direct voting became too cumbersome. After centuries of refinement, elections have become the most interesting feature of representative democracy. It is safe to say that all sovereign states operating under elected government today are representative democracies. Their legal and electoral systems tend to differ according to local conditions. It is impossible to imagine how these democracies would respond to bold categorization by the opposition camp in Hong Kong without a universally accepted standard.
A democratic component is the equal right to vote and stand in elections. It is a basic human right enshrined in the constitutions of all democratic countries. In practice it does not always translate into the "real universal suffrage" or "true democracy" - which is being demanded by opposition parties in Hong Kong. This is an undeniable fact and the opposition camp knows it. Why do they not acknowledge it?
A possible explanation is that they believe the public will believe what they tell them. Another reason could be that they are talking about ideals rather than reality. These are examples of political deceit and should be condemned.
Democracy has come a long way, but it has changed beyond recognition since its early days. One of the most undesirable mutations over the millennia is the role of elections. These are now the most important ingredient of democracy in most liberal societies. One need not look very far to see how this has been twisted.
Hong Kong held its first democratic elections after the 1997 handover. However, these elections have proven more important to some politicians than the true spirit of democracy. Certain lawmakers, instead of concentrating on delivering campaign promises, are more concerned about winning the next election. Every decision they make is based on whether it will be popular with their constituents.
Some politicians' careers are defined more by their performance in elections and controversial stunts than by their legislative achievements. This is because the latter is much harder to achieve. What they say during election campaigns is never meant to be taken seriously. This leads to outrageous acts, such as filibusters, by some opposition lawmakers.
The organizers of the illegal "Occupy Central" movement have planned an electronic poll on June 22. This is supposedly aimed at getting popular support for radical opposition groups' attempts to put forward candidates in the 2017 Chief Executive (CE) election.
Given their anti-central government stance, the radical groups have no chance of achieving this lawfully. So, they insist on trying to get nominated by means outside of the principles of the Basic Law and relevant decisions of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC).
The rationale behind this is that current constitutional rules governing the 2017 CE election make it impossible for radical opposition groups to have a member nominated as a candidate. Therefore, they will make it difficult for the 2017 CE election arrangements to pass in the Legislative Council (LegCo). But they are a minority in LegCo. They cannot block the government's constitutional development plans unless they deny the pro-establishment side a two-thirds majority. That is a very tall order. They will only be able to achieve this by misleading the public and pressuring their peers with lies about democracy.
An example of such attempts at misleading the public with pseudo-terminology is the use of the term "true democracy" - which the opposition camp uses in an effort to win public support. But they cannot even define the concept let alone prove it exists. Moreover, the Chinese term they use means "genuine universal suffrage" - not "true democracy". Are these two phrases synonymous? Are they interchangeable? The opposition camp seems to think so.
No official explanation has been given as to why they chose "true democracy" instead of "genuine universal suffrage" as the English version of the Chinese phrase. Both terms can be seen as arbitrary categorization of democratic systems into "genuine" or "counterfeit" and "true" or "false". They have no facts to support this because they are non-existent. It is now too risky for the opposition and its overseas allies to make something up.
The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.
(HK Edition 06/11/2014 page7)