In politics, perception is reality. It hardly needs reminding that perception plays a very important role in shaping public opinion. Since some critics see the forthcoming district council (DC) elections through the distorting lens of misperception and misunderstanding, we should put the electoral revamp of DCs in proper perspective. What has been the subject of intense debate is whether the nomination and vetting mechanisms are too strict for the “democrats” to join the race.

Some aspirants from former opposition parties have complained that the revamped electoral rules have made it harder for them to join the upcoming competition for district council seats. Hardest of all for members of former opposition groups to join the election race is the hurdle created by the patriotism test.

In May 2021, the National People’s Congress (NPC) authorized its Standing Committee to amend Annex I and Annex II of the Basic Law. The amendments aim at ensuring the enforcement of “patriots administering Hong Kong”. In line with this principle, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu has made it clear that future DCs will be composed solely of patriots, and that the government should prevent DCs from becoming hotbeds for separatist activities again.

This principle was reiterated by Zheng Yanxiong, director of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. On Oct 31, when speaking at a seminar on the district-governance structure, Zheng said the history of allowing anti-China agitators to enter the HKSAR’s governance structure should have come to an end. He also tried to dispel any misperception by stating that the patriots-only governance structure was an inevitable requirement to ensure long-term peace and stability.

Zheng deserves great credit for adding clarity to the concept of patriotism. He made it abundantly clear that patriots must be committed to safeguarding national sovereignty and development interests, respect the country’s fundamental systems, uphold Hong Kong’s constitutional order, and safeguard the city’s prosperity and stability. Many Hong Kong residents still remember the outrageous behavior of some opposition district councilors following their victories in the 2019 DC elections. They opposed the implementation of the National Security Law for Hong Kong and obstructed government policies. Their reprehensible acts remind us that all district councilors must be patriotic.

According to political scientist Sonny Lo Shiu-hing and other scholars, the hyper-politicization of the HKSAR unfortunately undermined the operation of DCs, whose paralysis after mass resignations and disqualification of many members in the latter half of 2020 left an indelible imprint on the history of district elections, politics and administration in Hong Kong. Only a stringent patriotism test can prevent DCs from sinking into the bottomless pit of paralysis again.

We also see strong force in the contention that DCs could not be counted as representative institutions forming part of the democratic system in Hong Kong. John Lee has noted that the notion of “democratic elements” in DC elections was a misguided proposition. Indeed, DCs are designed as district-level consultative bodies that wield no political power as parliaments do. Their prescribed function is to provide advice and assist the administration to better serve residents, and thus they could be considered as an extension of the executive branch. Notwithstanding the original design of DCs as nonpolitical organs, critics still consider DC elections as a part of the democratic system, and took issue with the reduced size of directly elected seats in the upcoming DC election, calling it “a retrograde step for democracy”. More patience is needed to explain the merits of the district-level electoral revamp to the critics

Finally, a post-election accountability system will be implemented to monitor the performance of district councilors

First of all, DCs’ legitimacy is derived from what they achieve for the benefit and well-being of society. Besides being a transmission belt between the government and the communities, DCs are responsible for providing service in culture, recreation and environmental sanitation. Their roles are to promote and support the implementation of government policies. Survival depends on performance. Implicit in the electoral overhaul is the emphasis on output legitimacy. Following a careful selection process either by the executive branch or “the three committees”, competent district councilors must be able to collect and reflect the views of the public. Since they are unfairly regarded as “intra-institutional representatives”, they must try their best to represent and articulate the interests of the communities in order to gain popular support.

In some democratic countries, competitive elections cannot guarantee the elected bodies are able to resolve differences of opinion to give effect to the will of the majority. The ruling party may either fail to fulfill their promises or represent the interests of voters on the opposition side. Nor can they deliver good governance. Survival depends on empty promises to perform. In the United States, vetocracy, political apathy, plutocracy, juristocracy and partisan polarization are the undesirable byproducts of competitive elections. Sheldon Wolin uses the term “democracy incorporated” to highlight the problem of plutocracy in American politics (Democracy, Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008)). Democracy takes different forms, and no country can monopolize the definition of democracy by requiring other countries to dogmatically attach inviolable value to the principle of competitive elections.

Finally, a post-election accountability system will be implemented to monitor the performance of district councilors. A performance monitoring system will be introduced to conduct supervision on DC members who fail to meet public expectations. Cases of poor performance will be referred to a supervisory committee appointed by the secretary for home and youth affairs to conduct investigations. The above mechanism adds strength to the view that the electoral overhaul could improve district administration and deliver good governance.

Chrystie Lam Haa-yiu is director of labour and welfare affairs at the Chinese Dream Think Tank, and the founder of Coalition of Global Home Service Sustainable Development.

Kacee Ting Wong is a barrister, a part-time researcher of Shenzhen University Hong Kong and the Macao Basic Law Research Center, and chairman of the Chinese Dream Think Tank.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.