Special Issue on the second decade of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China: themes and overview

Abstract

This editorial introduction sets the scene for the Special Issue. It highlights common themes in, and provides an overview of, the analyses in the following commissioned research articles.

Keywords:

• Hong Kong
• Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China
• Chinese Communist Party
• the Basic Law
• autonomy
• legitimacy
• civil society

Introduction

On 1 July 1997, the British government transferred the crown colony of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) through a process that emphasised continuity with the past (Carroll, 2007). In the transition, most government officials (apart especially from the Governor to become Chief Executive and the Attorney General to become Secretary for Justice) continued in place, the civil service system and personnel continued uninterrupted, and the laws of Hong Kong and its judiciary continued mostly unchanged with the same people performing the same roles. Hong Kong’s economic system that had privileged a small economic elite (eg., large property developers: the tycoons) and system of public finance continued, as did its system of land tenure. Also, its semi-democratic political system transitioned 1997 mostly unchanged, although new legislators were introduced. All of these arrangements were, and remain, enshrined in a constitutional document: the Basic Law (1997). Thus, Hong Kong experienced neither a revolution nor an anti-colonial struggle which the populace, fearful for the future, undoubtedly would not have welcomed.

Hong Kong lives daily with the consequences of the transfer, with the rich and powerful as its main beneficiaries having no incentive to change the state of affairs in any significant way. This was appreciated in commissioned articles in a Special Issue of this journal in 2007 marking the first decade (1997-2007) of the HKSAR (Ghai, 2007; Scott, 2007; Cheung, 2007; Chan & Chan, 2007; Lo, 2007). It remains a reality as the broad context in which the commissioned articles in this present Special Issue on the second decade (2007-2017) need to be read.

Themes

Written from the vantage point of 20 years since the HKSAR was formed, the articles that follow focus on significant themes. First, in one way or another, they all address the question of Hong Kong’s autonomy from the central state. They show that the central government has kept a tight rein especially on political autonomy (Lo), or has undermined it (Scott), with consequences for the under-development of the system of ministerial/official accountability (Lee & Yeung) and for the activities of civil society (Chan & Chan).

Second, important issues and concerns are raised about the legitimacy of Hong Kong’s political system and political processes, appreciating that legitimacy is critical for the governance of Hong Kong. For example, Scott addresses different interpretations of “one country, two systems” as a legitimising ideology enshrined in the Basic Law, with the central government regarding it as an integrating policy and the community seeing it as a contract; while Lo, in considering the significance of legitimisation strategies, appreciates that where political outcomes stage-managed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) run counter to public opinion, the party has seen the need to reassert that its decisions are in the best interests of the community.

Third, there is a clear appreciation of the significance of civil society in post-colonial Hong Kong. Civil society is an active contracting party to “one country, two systems” (Scott); a source or producer of public opinion, now more vocal and demanding, that has had to be taken into account as the centre has managed the Chief Executive election (Lo); a focus or recipient of government accountability (Lee & Yeung); and a vital force against perceived threats to Hong Kong’s autonomy and well-being (Chan & Chan).

Concerning and extending beyond these themes, each of the articles addresses arrangements pertinent to how Hong Kong has fared since 2007 as the second decade of the HKSAR.

Overview

Scott, in “‘One country, two systems’: the end of a legitimising ideology?”, argues that, for the CCP, “one country, two systems” is a policy designed to integrate Hong Kong with China, while for many in Hong Kong it is a contract guaranteeing a high degree of autonomy in the realms of politics, the law and legal system, civil liberties, and a movement towards a more democratic system. Steps to integrate Hong Kong with China were accelerated in 2014 with a central government whitepaper laying down specific procedures for implementing the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage that ensured central government control of the outcome. As a contract, Scott shows how autonomy has gradually been eroded since 2003, with the central government becoming increasingly involved in Hong Kong affairs. He concludes that further steps toward integration or erosion of autonomy are likely to lead to more radicalisation and increased loss of confidence in “one country, two systems” as a legitimising idea.

Hong Kong, having failed to endorse universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive, the Chief Executive in 2017 was selected by local elites in a process dominated by the CCP, as in previous post-1997 elections. Addressing the process and politics involved, Lo, in “Factionalism and Chinese-style democracy: the 2017 Hong Kong Chief Executive election”, appreciates that Chinese-style democracy means that political power is held by the central authorities. The contentious debate in Hong Kong in 2014-15 over introducing universal suffrage, and the failure to do so, significantly undermined the legitimacy of the Chief Executive selection process in 2017. The outcome comprising the election of Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor ran counter to public opinion which, according to Lo, explains the central authorities’ energetic, yet nervous and insecure, campaign to support her. Still, he concludes, the election fully conformed to Chinese-style democracy, which was led centrally by the CCP with expected results.

Lee and Yeung, in “The ‘Principal Officials Accountability System’: its underdevelopment as a system of ministerial government”, focus on the failure of the accountability system (the POAS), which was introduced in 2002 to make members of the government more publicly accountable and to improve legislative-executive relations. They point out that the POAS was layered over the colonial political system and that successive incremental changes have resulted in disjointedness and incoherence which could have been remedied by the introduction of a governing party and a cabinet system of government. They argue that leadership styles, policy priorities, competence of ministers and civil servants, and personality have all impacted the development of the system, with the structure and dynamics of the wider political system, including the scrutiny of the central government and its control over government appointments, also having a marked effect on it form and operation.

Outside government, civil society has continued to develop with interesting twists and turns, as addressed by Chan and Chan in “Hong Kong 2007-2017: a backlash in civil society”. They compare the evolution of civil society from 2007 to 2017 and conclude that it has become both more turbulent and more vibrant. They argue that it has become more proactive in protecting its autonomy, as evidenced by the increasing incidence of protest movements such as the anti-national education movement and Occupy Central comprising the Umbrella Movement. At the same time, they find that ordinary citizens have increasingly sought to serve others through social enterprises, community groups and alliances, and as individuals. Significantly, a more proactive civil society, especially through protest, has undermined the ability of civil society actors to partner with government and business. The spread of ideas of exclusion and intolerance and the rise of uncivil elements of civil society in Hong Kong is seen as a particularly disturbing trend.

Concluding observations

It is important to remember that Hong Kong, although special (eg., it has more autonomy from the central government than other regional governments in China), is nonetheless a regional government in an authoritarian political system in which Chinese citizens do not choose their government leaders through universal suffrage. Like in Hong Kong, political legitimacy in China is based largely on performance. The CCP selects government leaders in a system that highly values bureaucratic accountability. Still, the space for civil society in China has expanded greatly since the 1980s. This context for understanding where Hong Kong is 20 years after the handover is crucial to understanding the possibilities for Hong Kong during the next 30 years through to 2047 when its present constitutional arrangements are due to expire.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.