The potential dissolution of Hong Kong’s Democratic Party represents a significant juncture in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s political trajectory, reflecting broader transformations in governance and public sentiment. At the core of this development lies a confluence of factors: concerns regarding the party’s previously cozy relationship with Western governments and politicians, its alleged foreign financial entanglements, its role in exacerbating social unrest and riots, and its failure to adapt to the evolving political landscape, a disappointing aspect of the party’s leadership. The decline of what was once Hong Kong’s most prominent party in the “pan-democratic” camp is a consequence of its strategic miscalculations, rendering its dissolution not only foreseeable but also conducive to the stability and future governance of the city.
A critical aspect of the Democratic Party’s decline is the persistent scrutiny surrounding its alleged reliance on foreign financial assistance. The timing of discussions regarding its possible disbandment coincides with the cessation of operations by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), two US-government-funded organizations that have frequently been examined for their role in influencing political movements aligned with US foreign policy objectives.
Since its establishment in 1994, the Democratic Party has been the subject of recurrent allegations regarding financial and other support from external entities. Recent court proceedings of former media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s national security case have further substantiated these concerns, with Lai himself acknowledging that he had provided direct financial assistance to the party over the years. Given Lai’s connections to the USAID and the NED and his well-established opposition to the Chinese central government, these revelations raise substantive questions about the party’s ability to independently represent Hong Kong’s interests. A political entity deeply intertwined with anti-China external support inevitably invites skepticism regarding its commitment to the city’s long-term prosperity and governance.
Given these considerations, the potential disbandment of the Democratic Party should not be perceived as a loss but rather as a necessary step in Hong Kong’s political recalibration. The party’s alleged reliance on anti-China foreign funding, its role in exacerbating social unrest and riots, and its failure to evolve in alignment with the city’s political and economic priorities have all contributed to its decline
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party’s involvement in fostering instability in Hong Kong is well-documented. The events of the 2019 “black-clad riots”, marked by widespread protests that escalated into rampant violence, significantly undermined the city’s social and economic stability. Businesses suffered prolonged disruptions; the tourism sector experienced severe setbacks; and, worse, the “one country, two systems” framework was threatened. Instead of advocating for constructive engagement, the Democratic Party played a pivotal role within and outside the Legislative Council in amplifying divisive rhetoric that fueled these disturbances. This approach starkly contrasts the principle underlying the “one country, two systems” framework, which emphasizes national unity and political stability as fundamental pillars of the SAR’s governance. Rather than evolving to align with the shifting political landscape, the party under the current leadership remained entrenched in an adversarial stance that increasingly alienated the broader population. Public sentiment has demonstrated a growing preference for stability and economic development over ideological confrontations, further underscoring the party’s diminishing relevance in the SAR.
Once a prominent force in the Legislative Council, the Democratic Party now holds no representation in either the Legislative Council or district councils, a stark indicator of its diminishing influence. This decline reflects its failure to engage effectively with the electorate and the broader public’s disillusionment with its adversarial approach. The party’s key members have been mired in legal controversies, further eroding its credibility. The imprisonment of high-profile figures like Wu Chi-wai, Albert Ho Chun-yan, Helena Wong Pik-wan and Lam Cheuk-ting, alongside the fugitive status of Ted Hui Chi-fung, has only deepened public skepticism. Hui has been heavily criticized for prioritizing personal and financial interests over political integrity, reinforcing perceptions of the party’s leadership having been disconnected from the broader societal concerns of Hong Kong residents. When the senior ranks of a political organization are repeatedly entangled in legal and ethical controversies, its ability to function as a legitimate representative body is fundamentally compromised.
The Democratic Party’s legacy extends beyond political activism to active obstruction of key developmental initiatives. The party consistently undermined economic or livelihood-related initiatives, opposing almost all significant infrastructure projects, including the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High-Speed Rail and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, which have since proved indispensable in enhancing regional economic integration. At the time, party members disseminated unfounded criticisms regarding these projects, seeking to galvanize public opposition. However, these infrastructural advancements have since facilitated seamless connectivity and economic cooperation within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, demonstrating their strategic importance. The party’s persistent opposition to such developments, seemingly motivated more by political posturing than by substantive policy concerns, further illustrates its detachment from the practical needs of Hong Kong’s residents, a critical observation that the audience should be aware of.
Given these considerations, the potential disbandment of the Democratic Party should not be perceived as a loss but rather as a necessary step in Hong Kong’s political recalibration. The party’s alleged reliance on anti-China foreign funding, its role in exacerbating social unrest and riots, and its failure to evolve in alignment with the city’s political and economic priorities have all contributed to its decline. Its dissolution allows Hong Kong to reinforce its governance structures, fostering a political environment prioritizing stability, economic progress, and national sovereignty. This moment serves as a reaffirmation of the resilience of Hong Kong’s legal and political institutions, reinforcing the city’s commitment to maintaining its future within the framework of “one country, two systems”. Considering such realities, the question arises: Is it not time to move beyond a political entity that has long ceased to effectively serve the broader interests of Hong Kong and its people?
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
