A delve into the Hong Kong protests and the fire behind it.
Since June 2019 we have seen tensions rise in Hong Kong after China introduced a bill. It would allow political rivals of the Chinese communist party in Hong Kong, to be extradited and trialled on the mainland. This bill being the ‘Fugitive offenders and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters legislation bill 2019’ doesn’t explain the origin of the dispute between the two geopolitical entities. Instead the bill acted as the tipping point, and as a result one must understand from where this tension can be sourced.
On the 1stof July 1898, after Britain had won the ‘opium wars’, China was forced into signing a 99-year lease which would give Hong Kong to Britain for those years. When that lease expired, China was to grant Hong Kong a 50-year period of independence under the ‘one country two party system’. A system which would give Hong Kong the ability to govern itself with the principles of democracy and capitalism. Thus, it could establish its own legal system, its own currency and its own legislature. It would have the power to do the latter until 2047, under the guidelines proposed in ‘the basic laws of Hong Kong’, a constitution of sorts created in the ‘Sino-British joint declaration’ in 1984 and put into action in 1997. The most significant aspect of the constitution was Article 45; a code which would promise Hong Kong citizens the right to universal suffrage. Yet in 2020, 23 years after granting Hong Kong independence, we still see an element of democratic deficit as universal suffrage has not been fully granted. Hong Kong’s legislative body, otherwise known as LegCo (a legislative body consisting of sixty members), still has elements in it which defy the basic principles of democracy e.g. the fact that thirty members of the council are elected via a functional constituency, where only people in specific economic sectors, meaning a fringe proportion of the elite, can vote. In the past, these elites who were pro CCP, began to represent more and more of the LegCo body. Democratically elected geographical constituents, however, began to represent less and less, since China viewed them as ‘too democratic’. These elites had power over the executive in LegCo. This imbalance of power in the executive, essentially went against the principle of universal suffrage proposed in ‘Article 45’. Changes were made in 2004 which divided the body into two equal sections (70) once again. It now allowed people, regardless of their sector, to vote due to the introduction of ‘Superseats’. Although, due to the election of Xi Jinping, these changes were counteracted by his government. His governance, alongside the following series of events, accelerated the kindling of the tensions we see today.
2014 - Xi Jinping stated that any member of the executive had to ‘love the country and Hong Kong’ which essentially meant that candidates had to match certain criteria in order to be part of the executive. The criteria of course wouldn’t benefit Hong Kong. This further restricted who would be elected, and thus peoples voting influence.
2016-2017 - 6 pro democratic members of LegCo were disqualified after insincerely and ‘disrespectfully’ reading the oath in which one states they love the country.
2018 - China states that Chinese law was to be implemented in the ‘West Kowloon Terminus’ - a region of Hong Kong bordering China. Once again, we see another violation of the basic law code formed from the Sino-British joint declaration in 1984.
The riots that were started in 2019 are still happening to this day. They have been backed by around 2 million people, and clearly have had major influences on the nation’s political structure. Already, we are seeing more and more democratic candidates being part of the executive. The influence and support of these protests helped in repealing the Extradition bill, one of the five main aims of the protests. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the same degree of success will be seen with the other 4; 1. Enforcing the notion that the protests are not riots. 2. Release of all arrested. 3. Investigation into alleged police brutality. 4. Further Universal suffrage. Therefore, it is unlikely that the protests will cease anytime soon. As a result, China thought it would be appropriate to introduce ‘the national security law’ under Article 23 in the ‘Hong Kong Basic Law’, in order to combat the riots/protests as from a Chinese perspective, the riots/ protests are responsible for harnessing feelings of ‘treason, secession, sedition and subversion against the Chinese government. Yet the imposition of this is subjective as china states that acts of terrorism are being committed. However, from a Hong Kong perspective, that law is being used out of context as they are just protesting for freedom.
Overall, we can make the conclusive statement that China faces a major dilemma. If it decides to follow through with its plan to silence the protests, then China will be put on a global spotlight potentially creating additional friction. However, if it decides not to crack them down, the protests will undermine what China stands for and could perpetuate the idea that China’s regime can be undermined and challenged.
Sources
Comments