appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

isVideo

articlePageQuery

article

articleSchemaContent

content

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

hooksArticlePageFloatingButtonConfigArticle

appConfig

filter

json

liveArticle

Ronny Tong

Hong Kong’s Democratic Party has announced what many people had been expecting for some time – that it would disband. For the party, this is the beginning of the end; for others, the question lingers: is this also the end of the democratic movement in Hong Kong?
One thing is certain: the party’s demise will mark the end of an era, one when a colonial pressure-group mentality dictated the quest for democratic reforms in Hong Kong, a mentality which, sadly, was destined to ensure failure of the quest.
As Hong Kong’s oldest pro-democracy party, the Democratic Party was once the vanguard of the movement before the handover. In a way, the party was born with a political mindset rooted in colonial-era values, characterised by a deep-seated scepticism of the central government.
After the handover, the colonial-era scepticism continued to manifest as a lack of trust, breeding a belief that any form of communication with Beijing would only lead to subsumption, or a dangerous betrayal of the values espoused by the movement.
Thus, the movement with the Democratic Party as its leader firmly believed the only way to achieve democracy in Hong Kong was to generate maximum political and social pressure, including from Western governments, to compel Beijing to yield to its demands for an ideal, Western-style democracy.
It was in 2004 that I entered the political fray, motivated by the belief that the movement then could lead us to universal suffrage, a goal set in the Basic Law. But to achieve this goal, I believed the doomed mindset dominating the movement had to change. Why do I say doomed? Because within the framework of “one country, two systems”, Hong Kong cannot realistically forge any democratic system without first gaining the trust and acceptance of the central government.


The misguided belief of the movement that the central government is anti-democracy is simply wrong; it is the Basic Law itself that established democratic objectives for Hong Kong. These aspirations did not stem from a colonial legacy, nor the Sino-British Joint Declaration, but rather reflect a consensus reached between the central government and the people of Hong Kong in the 1980s.
More importantly, the 1997 reversion of Hong Kong to China symbolises not just a transfer of power in name, but in substance, a reintegration of Hong Kong as an inalienable part of China. The pursuit of democracy post-handover must therefore be rooted in the framework of the Basic Law, rather than imitate Western models.
The inherent contradiction between what the movement believed and what the reality was fundamentally undermined the movement, making its eventual failure inevitable. This has been a significant flaw in the post-handover pro-democracy movement.
Knowing this, I advocated the creation of a political party that would embrace a centrist approach and work towards fostering a trusting relationship with the central government. It was on this basis that I insisted on the founding of the Civic Party. I truly believed there was consensus on this approach so much so that the need to strive for mutual trust with Beijing was written into the founding manifesto.
Sadly, despite the founding consensus, the party’s leadership was unable to break away from the colonial-era mindset. Worse still, it allowed itself to be hijacked by radical younger members and external pressure.
In 2010, when the Democratic Party temporarily set aside its scepticism to reach a consensus with the central government on political reform, it marked a small ideological breakthrough. However, this move drew relentless criticism from other pro-democracy parties and supporters and the Civic Party seized the moment to challenge the Democratic Party’s leadership of the movement.

Faced with such intense pressure, the Democratic Party felt compelled to revert to its sceptical stance, engaging in competition with the Civic Party and other factions along an increasingly extreme path. In a way, the apparent success of the Civic Party at that point marked the beginning of the downfall of the Democratic Party and sounded the death knell for the Hong Kong democratic movement.
With the dissolution of the Civic Party and the Democratic Party, the movement as it was must also come to an end. Nonetheless, this should not imply the democracy movement in Hong Kong is devoid of hope. The only hopeless aspect here is the outdated and erroneous thinking that Hong Kong can have democracy without the central government’s blessing.
What the Democratic Party needed from the day Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty was the courage to reform and truly understand that under one country, two systems and the Basic Law, democratic development can only be built on a foundation of mutual trust among all stakeholders, including Beijing.
Choosing to disband rather than to accept this basic principle is a silent declaration that the Democratic Party does not truly understand one country, two systems.




Hong Kong does not need, nor should it be guided by, a so-called democratic movement or parties which refuse to collaborate with the nation in building a democratic framework that aligns with one country, two systems. What we truly require are political parties, like those in other countries and regions, that are loyal to the national constitutional order and political system.
We need a revitalised democracy movement and a new generation of leaders who can champion democratic goals under one country, two systems. Instead of lamenting a hollow legacy, we should focus on rebuilding on a solid foundation, striving towards the democratic aspirations articulated in Articles 45 and 68 of the Basic Law.


Tung Chee-hwa’s legacy helps lay foundations for better tomorrows

‘His love for Hong Kong was profound’: Tung Chee-hwa honoured at state funeral

Hong Kong’s first chief executive Tung Chee-hwa honoured with state funeral

US Congress investigates diversion of sensitive F-35 parts to Hong Kong: report

Hong Kong politics

End of the road for Hong Kong’s democracy movement? There’s still hope

Illustration: Craig Stephens

(From left) Emily Lau, Albert Ho and Cheung Man-kwong of the Democratic Party have an unprecedented meeting with (second from right) Li Gang, deputy director of the central government’s liaison office, at the liaison office headquarters on May 24, 2010. Photo: SCMP Pictures/Pool

Hong Kong’s political parties are embracing change for the better

Old and newly elected lawmakers gather at the Legislative Council Complex in Tamar, Admiralty, on December 9. Photo: Sam Tsang

Legco poll a chance for Hong Kong to show its resilience after Tai Po fire

End of an era as Hong Kong’s Democratic Party disbands after 31 years

Chairman Lo Kin-hei announced the decision following an extraordinary general meeting, capping an eight-month review process. Photo: Karma Lo

Members of the Democratic Party held a general meeting on Sunday to decide on the group’s dissolution. Photo: Karma Lo

Opinion

Hong Kong Opinion

News

Hong Kong

Politics

The only hopeless aspect is the erroneous thinking that Hong Kong can have democracy without the central government’s blessing


The only hopeless aspect is the erroneous thinking that Hong Kong can have democracy without the central government’s blessing.


Hong Kong Basic Law

Hong Kong political reform

Universal suffrage in Hong Kong

Hong Kong elections

China

Expresses the views, ideas and conclusions of the author. (Eg. Enough of Crazy Rich Asians, think of crazy poor Hongkongers.)


End of the road for Hong Kong’s democracy movement? There’s still hope

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}The only hopeless aspect is the erroneous thinking that Hong Kong can have democracy without the central government’s blessing

The only hopeless aspect is the erroneous thinking that Hong Kong can have democracy without the central government’s blessing