Beijing's stance on 'referendum' unhelpful
The plan by pan-democratic lawmakers to resign so a self-styled 'referendum' on universal suffrage can take place in the form of by-elections has, all along, been difficult to take seriously. It is unclear how success will be gauged; the campaigns cannot be restricted to the issue of democratic reform. And we don't need a 'referendum' to find out whether Hong Kong people want universal suffrage - we know they do.
But this needless distraction from the real issue of how to push forward democratic reform in our city is, it seems, being taken seriously in Beijing. A statement issued by the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office on Friday expressed serious concern about the plan by the Civic Party and League of Social Democrats to have five lawmakers resign to trigger fresh polls. But the statement did not stop there. It said the 'referendum' plan is a breach of the Basic Law - in effect, a declaration by Beijing that the by-elections are unconstitutional. This is a worrying development and the reasoning behind the statement is as flawed as the resignation plan itself.
The statement is right when it says a referendum is a constitutional arrangement with specific political and legal connotations. But the crucial point missed by the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office is that the resignation plan is not a referendum. This is just a name that has been given to it by those involved. In constitutional terms, it is no more than a series of by-elections. Those elections should, therefore, be perfectly lawful and constitutional. They will be conducted in accordance with existing electoral laws. Candidates for the five seats will be elected and take their places in the Legislative Council. People will form their own view of what all this tells us about Hong Kong people's views on democratic reform. Very likely, both the pan-democrats and the pro-government parties will claim success. It will be a strange sort of election - but certainly not a referendum.
In any event, the Basic Law is silent on the question of referendums. It does not expressly permit them. But there are many things it does not expressly permit - breathing for example. Certainly, it does not rule referendums out.
Beijing seems to have played into the pan-democrats' hands by issuing this statement. Nothing is more likely to drive democrat voters to the polls than a declaration by Beijing that the elections are unconstitutional. It has dignified the ill-conceived resignation plan by treating it as a matter of constitutional significance. The statement also creates a dilemma for pro-government politicians. If they don't participate in the by-elections they will miss the opportunity to win seats held by pan-democrats. But if they contest the polls they risk being seen by Beijing to have taken part in an unconstitutional act.
The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office statement inevitably raises concerns about Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy being breached. It is rare for Beijing to comment publicly on a Hong Kong issue as sensitive as constitutional reform.
Mainland officials are, like anyone else, entitled to express their opinions. But their statement on this issue is unlikely to help further rational debate. Indeed, there is a danger that it will polarise the reform process at a time when we need our politicians to work together. The resignation plan is a bad idea, but it is not an affront to the Basic Law. With or without the by-elections, what is needed now is a high-quality debate about the electoral reforms to be put in place in 2012.
