A month has passed since the public consultation began on the government's modest reform proposals for the 2012 elections. But there has been little in-depth discussion of the proposals. The debate has largely been drowned out by controversy over the resignation plan by pan-democrat lawmakers, which will involve them re-contesting their seats at by-elections in a "referendum" on a faster pace towards democracy. The plan, which will go ahead without the Democratic Party, is a needless distraction from the real task of securing a better deal from the government so that more meaningful reforms are made.
If the resignations are to go ahead, however, they should be used by all as way of furthering the discussion. This should be an opportunity for the community to have a sensible debate about the government's proposals and the preferred way forward. Sadly, there is a likelihood that the by-election campaigns will descend into political mud-slinging on both sides, turning voters off the real issues. What we need is for all sides, including thegovernment, to make their position clear to the public, so electors can make an informed decision when expressing their preference.
Unnecessary by-elections are unsatisfactory proxies for an expression of popular will. While they will provide the public with a way of registering their opinion through the ballot box, they are not as clear cut as a real referendum. Referendums involve propositions that are either approved or not by simple majorities making a "yes" or "no" vote. By-elections not only involve contests in single electorates between political parties and personalities with and without party affiliations, but they can attract smaller than normal turnouts. They can have unexpected outcomes. There is no guarantee that these will be one-issue elections, as the democrats wish. Pro-government lawmakers are already talking about using livelihood issues as the focus of their campaign. The issues involved - and the message sent by the electorate - could become blurred.
There are questions to be answered about the possible results. The organisers of these resignations by lawmakers from the League of Social Democrats and the Civic Party must make it clear what they regard as being a successful outcome. Though the government has rightly urged the democrats to abandon the plan, it must also make its position clear on how it will interpret the results.
If the pan-democrats win - or lose - what does that mean? If a couple of them are not returned to Legco, does this mean that the public does not want democratic reform? We know that is not the case. The reality is that we do not need a referendum on democracy to determine the views of most Hong Kong people - we already know what they are. Support for pro-democracy candidates in direct elections over the years and the results of opinion polls have consistently confirmed majority support for democracy. This has been recognised by the government. The questions to be answered, rather, concern the form that the new system will take.
However, anything less than a ringing endorsement for the pan-democrats is bound to be interpreted by government allies as an indication that the community lacks the appetite for democratic reform. If the referendum is not to backfire on the pan-democrats, they need to conduct a disciplined campaign, without being sidetracked by other issues.
It can only be hoped that this rather dubious resignation plan will, through public debate, lead to the emergence of a clearer picture on how best to take democratic reform forward.
沒有留言:
張貼留言