Rear Window: Source code

Severo Portela

Occupy Central member Benny Tai Yiu-ting’s admission of an objective defeat regarding the 2017 full democratic electoral method, and the corresponding victory of the National People’s Congress by their refusal of an open nomination system, comes as a dramatic anti-climax to the confrontation between Hong Kong pan-democrats and conservatives…up to a point. There will be universal suffrage in the next Chief Executive election, from a short-screened pool of candidates.
For the benefit of the argument, we would rather see the outcome of the political clash between the two opposing camps more as a kind of draw, since both democrats and conservatives, as the simplification goes, now fully realize that the source code is the letter of HKSAR Basic Law. This way, Hong Kong succeeds in resetting the political debate on the common ground of its mini-constitution letter, while avoiding a Raymond Carver inspired moment of ‘what we talk about when we talk about democracy.’ Even worse than the speculative nightmare of ‘something’ going forward no matter the pace, would be to go backwards.
For what is really important, the Basic Law will grant Hong Kong people the right to elect their Chief Executive by universal suffrage from a pool screened through a 1200 strong electoral committee that acts as a traditional safety-device against political uncertainty. As the concept of universal suffrage ‘spills’ from the letter of the Basic Law to the spirit of the people who will be called to vote in 2017: everybody, liberal or conservative, will be ready to scrap the functional constituency seats in the Legislative Council. The important point is to follow the Basic Law.
To the wonder of some establishment-minded reactionary conservatives, HK Legislative Council President Jasper Tsang, himself a DAB star, has no problem acknowledging the unfairness of functional constituencies and drawing attention to the fact that functional or special interest seats could not be maintained upon reaching full universal suffrage. Until then, Tsang emphasizes, they are legitimate (according to the Basic Law) and should be respected by everybody, whether or not one agrees with this formula for representing the conservative establishment.
At this precise point, when we speak about respect, we make the cross over from the Pearl River Delta to the Macau Special Administrative Region to address some issues on…respect and disrespect.
One should not disrespect New Macau Association democrats when they demand universal suffrage, even though the MSAR’s Basic Law does not include the exact wording; directly-elected democrats, even in the ‘so-called’ denomination, have to respect the indirectly elected legislators. Even though the small-circle of vested interests is an anachronistic enough method to select representatives, they do not deserve disrespect. Directly-elected LA members could argue that the Macau Basic Law explicitly calls for the indirectly elected legislators to be a dwindling bench. Everybody deserves to be respected, so much so that they are elected according to the Basic Law! Chui Sai On does not need a special mention for his smooth re-election. Anyway, we have to credit the respect with which the incumbent handled his constitutional obligations regarding the sole-candidate election of the Chief Executive.
Unfortunately, it looks like some people have not yet progressed from the standard argument that Macau’s people are not yet ready for democracy, and that Macau democrats are radicals.
They are wrong. Macau democrats belong to the system; they make the system believable; they represent almost 16% of directly elected ballots – and yes it is universal suffrage. They are irreplaceable.