Politics is the process by which a community decides how to govern itself through laws and policies. In an open, representative system, this involves public debate, often between factions supporting different views. In an authoritarian system, the process takes place behind closed doors among a small group of power-holders and excludes the public, who are expected to just go along with the result. In stricter authoritarian regimes, critics might be jailed for speaking out.
Hong Kong used to have a semi-open system, with elected representatives attempting to hold unelected decision-makers accountable. Today, with an ‘all-patriots’ legislature and local councils, the public does not have even that level of input. Sedition laws, meanwhile, do not exactly encourage debate. This is by design, in accordance with a principle that China’s supreme ruling party must have a monopoly of power. But it seems academics at Chinese U didn’t get the message…
Nearly 60 per cent of Hongkongers are uninterested in politics, according to a survey by the Chinese University of Hong Kong, with only 3.4 per cent saying they posted or shared “very often” about their political views.
The survey released on Monday also found that more than 80 per cent of respondents rarely or never expressed their views on social affairs to the government, and more than half believed that officials did not care about their views.
Political scientists said the widespread lack of interest could harm governance and called on officials and legislators to engage more widely with the public to understand their concerns.
…Political scientist Chan Wai-keung from the Polytechnic University’s Community College added that the reduction of elected seats in the Legislative Council and district councils following Beijing’s led electoral reforms had contributed to public apathy.
Dr Hung Wing-lok, of the Chinese University’s school of governance and policy science, said that there should be more public engagement.
“The findings show that officials, district councillors and legislators need to engage more widely with the public to understand their concerns and opinions on Hong Kong’s development,” Hung said.
If the government wanted that, it could reintroduce a system whereby voters could elect critics and opponents to legislative and consultative bodies. Indeed, it could go the whole way and have a freely elected chief executive. Moves to a less open and representative system – attracting less public interest – were deliberate…
…lawmaker Chan Yung, also a vice-chairman of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, argued that the city had traditionally prioritised economic development over politics.
“In the past, people got more interested in politics because many social affairs were politicised by the opposition camp. Legco became a venue of protests. That was bad quality democracy,” he said.
“Now we are back to high-quality democracy and Legco has also returned to play the role of coordinating with the government to help its governance.”
So today we have only lawmakers who think ‘economic development’ is separate from ‘politics’, ‘social affairs’ should not be ‘politicized’, and public interest in politics is ‘bad quality democracy’.
This is not just about having elected representatives scrutinizing and checking government. As Ma Ngok notes in the introduction to a recent paper on district councils at their brief democratic peak…
…local elections can … support social and political movements, promote civic participation and community-building, and strengthen civil society.
Which brings us back to yesterday’s sidelining of gay rights and other NGOs, and of professional groups like social workers.
Doesn’t the CCP offer CCP aligned labour unions? CCP aligned NGOs? CCP aligned charities? CCP aligned professional groups?
See? Things could be GREAT as long as things are CCP aligned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guo_Meimei_(Internet_celebrity)
The optimistic view is that these academics are being deliberately obtuse, having decided that some mild-mannered handwringing about “public apathy” is a safe way of publicly reporting the uh, climate of overwhelming fear and despair. I know of other academics who describe what’s happening as strategic, self-protective disengagement. But in paywalled academic journals read by all of 50 people.
The more cynical view is that any academic left who’s willing to talk to the media is a toady. Proper toeing the line doesn’t just involve agreeing with the government about everything, it requires pretending that you were perfectly free not to agree with the government, but just couldn’t help noticing how correct they are.
Those who care and speak up are in gaol or have left
Those left know from example not to speak up
And judging by the economy, the international reputation, and the lack of vibrancy and opportunity, this is really achieving exactly what they have set out to do.
“lawmaker Chan Yung, also a vice-chairman of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, argued that the city had traditionally prioritised economic development over politics.”
Indeed, and that is why so many residents would never vote for DAB and the other parties now in power and see no point in engaging with Legco or DC.
The track record of these parties has always been to support the elite and ignore the interests of the majority. Their interest in the grass roots is confined to garnering votes on PH estates.
The problems with workers not getting paid, as one example, can certainly be attributed to the FTU. Its iron bowl seats in Legco over the years effectively stifled many initiatives that were opposed by the employer quango to improve the lot of workers .
@Chinese Netizen
Among NGOs, INGOs and other XXGOs, Leninist states like China have something called a GONGO – Government Organised Non Governmental Organisation (the United Front is one such organisation.
Get you ahead around that if you can!
Remember the last time we were allowed to participate in politics and DAB lost 96 seats?
Not to mention Regina and Junius finding out how little their views aligned with those of the general public.
How far we have fallen.