Although the good intention behind the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government’s decision to shake up district councils is married to a post-election accountability system that is capable of ensuring the delivery of good governance and allowing residents to have a real taste of the fruits of effective governance, critics still insist that the proposed reforms will cause democratic regression in Hong Kong. John Burns, an honorary professor at the University of Hong Kong, argues that the new district representatives would act as cheerleaders for the government (Chan Ho-him, There Will Be Only One Voice: Hong Kong Stifles Its Grassroots Democracy, in the Financial Times). We think his observation is totally wrong.
It’s impossible to understand the rationale behind the revamp of district administration outside the context of the emergence of radical anti-China disruptive forces at the district level in late 2019. In November 2019, the “pan-democratic” camp secured 392 of the 452 seats available on the city’s 18 district councils under a “single seat and single vote” system. In January 2020, hundreds of “pan-democratic” district councilors refused to attend a briefing by the then-chief secretary for administration, Matthew Cheung Kin-chung.
Some newly elected district councilors were fond of politicking, which is not supposed to be their purview. For example, the Yuen Long District Council set up a task force to look into the attack by a mob on their opponents at Yuen Long Railway Station in July 2019. Riding on a fresh wave of confrontational populism, the Central and Western District Council passed several politically motivated motions in 2020 with the purpose of embarrassing and discrediting some government departments. One motion focused on the code on the police’s access to their conference room.
To make matters worse, some district councilors even covertly supported “Hong Kong independence”. But many of their noncore supporters did not pay much attention to their hidden political agenda. Only those who knew them best trusted them the least. Finally, their hostility toward the government attracted wide media coverage when the “pan-democratic” camp held their so-called “primary election” in July 2020. Some district councilors were active participants in the “primary election”. Some 47 individuals have been charged with conspiracy to subversion for organizing the “primary election”, which was part of a plot to paralyze the HKSAR government. Besides, some district councilors believed that they faced no task more important than opposing the National Security Law for Hong Kong.
It was against this backdrop that the government decided to shake up district councils to ensure that district administration should be in conformity with the twin principles of “executive-led administration” and “patriots administering Hong Kong”. The proposed reforms, when implemented, will depoliticize district councils. The government will also play an important role in monitoring the performance of councilors after elections.
The design of the new district councils will be credited with a fundamental value change to meet the special needs of Hong Kong in the post-riot era. An emphasis on output legitimacy, a post-election accountability system and a meritocratic appointment system represent the new core values against which the effectiveness and accountability of the revamped district councils will be measured. However eloquently those Western narratives are made in support of Anglo-Saxon democracy, we are not persuaded that a popular and competitive election system is the only route to legitimacy and good governance. Critics of the proposed district council reform may be suffering from severe information disorder syndrome.
We start with the first core value. Instead of emphasizing the legitimizing role of competitive elections, proponents of output legitimacy argue that the ability of district councilors to deliver good and effective governance will also confer legitimacy on the district councils. In an interview with reporters of the Voice of America, Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang strongly criticized the “undemocratic” composition of the new district councils. Under the reform plan, the new councils will consist of 179 appointed seats, 176 indirectly elected seats and 88 directly elected seats. Leung is of the dogmatic view that the conceptual bond between competitive election and legitimacy cannot sustain competing alternative interpretations. Having blind faith in Anglo-Saxon democracy, he believes that only competitive elections can confer legitimacy on the district councils.
Those who cannot remember the major defect of Western democracy are condemned to repeat it. In the words of French historian Pierre Rosanvallon, the crisis of parliamentary democracy is that it cannot deliver good governance and outcomes. He emphasizes that no one believes any longer that democracy can be reduced to a system of competitive elections culminating in majority rule (Pierre Rosanvallon, Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity). Since the outbreak of the financial crisis in the US in 2008, serious doubts have arisen about the ability of Anglo-Saxon democracy to deliver good governance. The current cost-of-living crisis in the United Kingdom has further exposed the weakness of parliamentary democracy in bringing real benefits to people.
The second core value is a post-election accountability system. With the exception of Switzerland, most Western democracies have paid scant attention to such an accountability mechanism. In Switzerland, any law enacted by the elected legislative branch can be vetoed by a vote of the general public. Under the reform plan, the HKSAR government will introduce an accountability system to monitor the performance of district councilors. Those who fail to promote the policies as assigned by the district officers — government officials in charge of municipal-level administration — could face disciplinary probes.
Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu has emphasized the importance of key performance indicators (KPIs) in managing for results. We firmly believe that the KPIs will play an important role in monitoring the performance of district councilors. When Tung Chee-hwa became the first chief executive of HKSAR, he also intended to focus more on managing for results (Colin Sankey, An Overview of Public Sector Reform in the Hong Kong Government Since 1989, in Anthony B.L. Cheung and Jane C.Y. Lee (eds.), Public Sector Reform in Hong Kong (HK: Chinese University Press, 2001)).
The last core value is a meritocratic appointment system. Some professionals, who are also active community officers, have been serving their designated districts for many years. Armed with professional knowledge and community-level working experience, these prospective appointees can help deliver good governance to their respective districts. Finally, the nomination system will ensure that only patriots run Hong Kong. We are confident that the nomination system will bring the overhaul into complete harmony with the need to safeguard national security.
Chan Cho-leung is chairman of New Territories East Branch BPA, an Election Committee member, and adviser of rural affairs and district administration of Chinese Dream Think Tank.
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 Chinese Dream Think Tank.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
