China Policy Institute

China Policy Institute Briefing Series – Issue 22 CHIEF EXECUTIVE ELECTION 2007: CONVERGING THE DEMOCRATISATION ROADMAPS OF BEIJING AND THE HKSAR Sow Keat TOK © Copyright China Policy Institute May 2007 China House University of Nottingham University Park Nottingham NG7 2RD United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)115 846 7769 Fax: +44 (0)115 846 7900 Email: [email protected] Website: www.chinapolicyinstitute.org The China Policy Institute was set up to analyse critical policy challenges faced by China in its rapid development. Its goals are to help expand the knowledge and understanding of contemporary China in Britain, Europe and worldwide, to help build a more informed dialogue between China and the UK and Europe, and to contribute to government and business strategies. Summary Incumbent Donald Tsang Yam Kuen emerged the winner of the widelyanticipated Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) election for the post of Chief Executive (CE), held on 25 March 2007. The result came as a no surprise, considering the huge backing Tsang enjoyed in the 800member Election Committee dominated by a mainlandleaning membership. What was surprising to many external observers was Tsang’s immense popularity during the campaigning period. Various opinion polls conducted throughout the campaign showed that Tsang consistently enjoyed an overwhelming lead over his fellow candidate, Alan Leong Kah Kit. This is contrary to the general belief that average, prodemocratic Hong Kongers would rally behind Leong, from the Civic Party, in his bid for the highest office in the HKSAR. This election is notable as a watershed for posthandover Hong Kong politics, in many aspects. It was the first competitive CE election featuring two candidates from different political camps. Even though the election did not involve direct voting, in order to keep their competitive edge, both candidates ran campaigns that attempted to reach out to average Hong Kongers, each to varying degrees. As a result, the election agendas were better developed, both in terms of breadth and depth; two public forums were held to pit the two candidates against each other in their championing of issues, giving all Hong Kongers a glimpse of the candidates and information on their policy programmes through various publicaccessed media, including the Internet. The final outcome was thus a ‘winwin’ result for both the HKSAR and its political masters in Beijing. For the SAR, the election ushered in a new era of political reconciliation between different political forces in the territory, in particular between the proBeijing and prodemocratic camps, offering the competing political forces the opportunity to raise awareness on various economic, social, and political concerns in the HKSAR. Compared to previous obsessions with economic issues, this election has brought about a diversification of the political agenda; meanwhile it also provided a common and institutionalised platform that allowed different political interests and viewpoints to converge and reconcile. The election also highlighted the importance of organised political mobilisation, through political parties, in Hong Kong’s political life; organisation has allowed the prodemocrats to pool their resources and expertises. Tsang had not enjoyed the formal, institutional backing that his rival had acquired. Although favoured and backed by the Chinese top leadership, Tsang in reality found himself in the disadvantaged position of an independent candidate, having to rely on his personal popularity and networks to achieve his election target. The prodemocrats’ institutional capacity to run an effective campaign will certainly be a case for further studies for Beijing and its future candidates. Meanwhile, this was Beijing’s first experience in a contested election in the SAR. The Chinese political leaders will undoubtedly enjoy a new boost of confidence in their management of Hong Kong affairs and its pace of democratisation, in all likelihood paving the way for significant political reforms in the HKSAR during Tsang’s second term in office, due to run from July 2007 to June 2012. Surrounded by his own popular support and Beijing’s committed political backing, Tsang is poised to work out a political reform plan that satisfies Beijing, its affiliated political forces, and the prodemocracy camp. Beijing is likely to be more agreeable to gradual expansions of the Election Committee and the proportion of Legislative Council members elected from the geographic constituencies in the years ahead, with a view to even greater changes, including universal suffrage, in subsequent elections in the years that follow. Meanwhile, other forms of democratisation will continue to progress in the HKSAR. Parallel measures, such as reforming the legal status of political parties, will help to lay the foundation for a more stable political transition in the territory. These reforms will alter the structure of popular mobilisation and support, which, over time, contribute to more responsive governance, and possibly further democratic advancement in the HKSAR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE ELECTION 2007: CONVERGING THE DEMOCRATISATION ROADMAPS OF BEIJING AND THE HKSAR Sow Keat TOK * A ‘NoSurprise’ Election Result 1.1 Incumbent Donald Tsang Yam Kuen emerged the winner of the widely anticipated Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) election for the post of Chief Executive (CE), held on 25 March 2007. The result came as a no surprise, considering the huge backing Tsang enjoyed in the 800member Election Committee (more commonly known as the electoral college system) dominated by a mainlandleaning membership. 1.2 What was surprising to many external observers was Tsang’s immense popularity during the campaigning period. Various opinion polls conducted throughout the campaign showed that Tsang consistently enjoyed an overwhelming lead over his fellow candidate, Alan Leong Kah Kit. This is contrary to the general belief that average, prodemocratic Hong Kongers would rally behind Leong, from the Civic Party (a prodemocratic outfit), in his bid for the highest office in the HKSAR. 1.3 This election is notable as a watershed for posthandover Hong Kong politics, in many aspects. It was the first competitive CE election featuring two candidates from different political camps. Even though the election did not involve direct voting, in order to keep their competitive edge, both candidates ran campaigns that attempted to reach out to average Hong Kongers, each to varying degrees. 1.4 As a result, the election agendas were better developed, both in terms of breadth and depth; two public forums—yet another first in the history of HKSAR—were held to pit the two candidates against each other in their championing of issues, giving all Hong Kongers a glimpse of the candidates and information on their policy programmes through various media, including the Internet. 1 1.5 The final outcome was thus a ‘winwin’ result for both the HKSAR and its political masters in Beijing. For the SAR, the election ushered in a new era of political reconciliation between different political forces in the territory, in * Sow Keat TOK is a Research Associate in the China Policy Institute, School of Contemporary China Studies, University of Nottingham. With support from the CPI, he was in Hong Kong in March 2007 to observe the election campaign; and he wishes to thank Director Richard Pascoe and Professor Yongnian Zheng for their support for this research, and invaluable comments on early drafts of this brief. It was written as a continuation of an earlier brief published by CPI, Sow Keat Tok, ‘Caught in the “One Country, Two Systems” Quandary: Background Notes on Democratisation in the HKSAR’, Briefing Series – Issue 19, Nottingham: China Policy Institute (February 2007). 1 For example, the radio and television feeds of the forum (conducted in Cantonese dialect) were available ‘live’ on the website of Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK), and remained downloadable even after the elections, at http://www.rthk.org.hk/special/ceelection2007/2007030119.asx and http://www.rthk.org.hk/special/ceelection2007/2007031520.asx. (Accessed 25 April 2007). 1 particular between the proBeijing and prodemocratic camps, offering the competing political forces the opportunity to raise awareness on various economic, social, and political concerns in the HKSAR. Compared to previous obsessions with economic issues, this election has brought about a diversification of the political agenda; meanwhile it also provided a common and institutionalised platform that allowed different political interests and viewpoints to converge and reconcile. 1.6 The election also highlighted the importance of organised political mobilisation, through political parties, in Hong Kong’s political life; organisation has allowed the prodemocrats to pool their resources and expertises. Tsang had not enjoyed the formal, institutional backing that his rival had acquired. Although favoured and backed by the Chinese top leadership, Tsang in reality found himself in the disadvantaged position of an independent candidate, having to rely on his personal popularity and networks to achieve his election target. The prodemocrats’ institutional capacity to run an effective campaign will certainly be a case for further studies for Beijing and its future candidates. 1.7 Meanwhile, this was Beijing’s first experience in a contested election in the SAR, albeit one that is rather limited in terms of suffrage. The Chinese political leaders will undoubtedly enjoy a new boost of confidence in their management of Hong Kong affairs and its pace of democratisation. 1.8 This scenario will likely pave the way for significant political reforms in the HKSAR during Tsang’s second term in office, due to run from July 2007 to June 2012. Surrounded by his own popular support (in terms of public opinion polling registered in the HKSAR) and Beijing’s committed political backing, Tsang is poised to work out a political reform plan that satisfies Beijing, its affiliated political forces, and the prodemocracy camp. This will not be an easy task for Tsang, though, as he embarks on the search for that thin overlap between the different political forces.

Load more