Hong Kong, a special administrative region (SAR) of China, has a partially autonomous political and legal system, including a limited form of democracy developed since its days under British colonial rule.
Those limits and the government’s inability to continue a transition to full democracy have been criticized by the city’s opposition and have sparked mass protest movements.
And there is certainly a lot to be troubled with.
Those affected include activist Joshua Wong, leader of the 2014 Umbrella Movement, and other former student protesters, but also top candidates from pro-democracy parties and multiple moderate lawmakers, including Dennis Kwok and Alvin Yeung.
While candidates have been banned from running in the past, and some were even removed once elected, the sheer number of those who were excluded this week, and the extensive justifications given for doing so, raise questions about whether opposition is possible significant in the past. Hong Kong.
The next elections, currently scheduled for September 6, will be the first since a new national security law came into effect, criminalizing secession, subversion, terrorism and foreign interference.
That law has already had a major chilling effect, and may have halted the city’s protest movement. The government now appears to be coming after its critics within the legislature.
Political evidence
While the decisions to ban 12 lawmakers were made by returning officials in their various constituencies (low-level bureaucrats), both the Hong Kong and Chinese governments quickly issued statements in support of the measure.
Under Hong Kong’s Basic Law, the city’s de facto constitution, potential lawmakers must swear to “defend” the constitution, a statement that has been largely procedural in the past.
But citing a court case in 2016 that bans an independence candidate, the government said in a statement that the commitment to “defend” the Basic Law “denotes not only compliance with it, but also the intention to support, promote and accept it. ”
The government also gave examples of behaviors that would result in disqualification, including defending Hong Kong’s independence or self-determination, or “requesting the intervention of foreign governments or political authorities.”
While such behavior is tolerated in many democracies, both the British and Canadian parliaments include openly secessionist parties, for example, all of which are recently illegal in Hong Kong under security law.
However, other examples are much more in line with what it means. be an opposition politician, which includes “expressing an intention” to “indiscriminately reject (reject) any legislative proposals, appointments, funding requests, and budgets submitted by (the government) to compel the government to agree to certain political demands.”
This appears to be in response to a plan by some in the pro-democracy arena, if they won a majority in the legislature, to reject leader Carrie Lam’s budget, forcing a constitutional crisis and potentially his resignation.
Candidates should also be excluded if they express “an objection in principle” to the enactment of the security law. And while the government promised that the law would not be retroactive, several returning officials cited the candidates’ opposition to the law before its enactment as a reason to ban them, something that could result in many more disqualifications given that virtually the entire pro-democracy movement he joined to oppose the law.
Free and fair?
In its statement of support for the disqualification of candidates this week, and insinuating more to come, the government said that “it was not about political censorship, restriction of freedom of expression or deprivation of the right to stand for election as some members allege of the community “.
“The (Hong Kong) government respects and protects the legal rights of the Hong Kong people, including the right to vote and the right to stand for election. It also has a duty to implement and defend the Basic Law and ensure that all Elections are held in accordance with the Basic Law and the relevant electoral laws, “he added.
However, the claim was immediately questioned by many, both inside and outside the city, including British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, who, in a statement, said it was clear that the candidates “were disqualified for their political views. ”
“The measure undermines the integrity of ‘One country, two systems’ and the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law of Hong Kong,” added Raab, referring to the system that under international law guaranteed the autonomy of the city. until 2047.
Human rights groups, current lawmakers, political parties and other foreign governments have also criticized the measure, and Amnesty International has said it demonstrated an “intention to punish peaceful criticism and upholding opposing views.”
While the elections themselves are currently in doubt due to the coronavirus, there is a suggestion that it could be postponed to next year, if it continues, it seems likely that it will not include many of the most popular or prominent pro-democrats. figures in the city, and perhaps few serious opposition candidates.
There are echoes in this of the proposal submitted by Beijing in 2014 on how Hong Kong could choose its leader. Unlike the current system, where a small committee selects the executive director, the Chinese government said that all Hong Kong people would get a vote, but Beijing would control who comes.
.
