The Hindu Business Line : Hong Kong: Democracy and development

On July 1, Hong Kong completed a decade of its reversion to China. The transfer of Hong Kong to China, after being under British rule for 156 years, was an epochal event in modern history as no war was fought or any blood shed; yet two powerful but very different countries — one professing socialism, at least in theory, and the other a liberal democracy — reached an agreement after protracted dialogue to find the innovative ‘one-country-two-system’ formula, a brainchild of Deng Xiaoping, who, however, did not live to see Hong Kong’s reversion to China.

As per the ‘one-country-two-system’ formula, for 50 years Hong Kong would continue to retain its political and economic system bequeathed by Britain with a degree of autonomy envisaged under the ‘Basic Law’ of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The agreement was a diplomatic coup for China that had had to cede Hong Kong to Great Britain in 1842, after the opium wars. The reversion of Hong Kong, a classic laissez-faire economy long used to liberal democratic values, to Communist China raised issues relating to the future of the island and the viability of the ‘one-country, two-system’ formula. One key issue which at times created some stress was the pace of democratisation in Hong Kong.

It may be recalled in this context that when the last Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, left the colony in July 1997, he was leaving behind not just a colony but a dose of democracy, the importance of which he perhaps never realised earlier. His prescription for democracy triggered a row between China and those in Hong Kong swearing by the ideas and ideals of the Westminster model.

From the beginning Beijing had opposed the democracy roadmap drawn by Chris Patten. The election that took place on March 26, predictably, re-elected the Beijing-backed Donald Tsang to the highest post — Chief Executive — defeating his democratic rival, Alan Leong.

The casual connection between democracy and development is of crucial importance in the case of Hong Kong. This is because this thriving tiny enclave has had a long-standing tradition of laissez-faire economy and because of it the delinquencies of electoral politics of liberal democracy are more of an aberration than the rule. Hong Kong’s is a rags-to-riches story. Productivity and profit have been the guiding principles of its dynamic entrepreneurs.

Initially an entrepot, Hong Kong emerged one of the world’s major financial centres, besides being a key manufacturing and trading hub. The enclave has weathered many a storm and developed a Darwinian instinct for survival. Many experts attribute this economic resilience to Hong Kong’s freewheeling economy and the political insularity of its people. This is well reflected in the system of government, whose hallmark is consensus and societal harmony in a multicultural, multiracial and multiethnic milieu.

What Hong Kong needs is stability and an investment-friendly climate conducive for entrepreneurship. The spirit of entrepreneurship will flourish under a democratic set-up rather under an authoritarian regime. But the path of democracy may not be the one prescribed by Western liberals; there can be an alternative way.

Although Hong Kong does not boast of universal adult suffrage, it can take pride in having one of the most vibrant, free media in the world, even under Chinese rule. The rule of law, as practised in Hong Kong, can be compared with the best in the world. Hong Kong also has the reputation of being one of the cleanest societies, thanks to the role of its Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

The experience of Hong Kong in transition under Beijing has been smooth and satisfactory and holds much promise for the future.

(The author is Joint Director, Research & Information Division, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi.)