Democracy Not for the Sake of Democracy
The front-page covers of the Philippine Star newspaper this morning was a gigantic picture of the masses of protesters occupying Central, the ground zero of Hong Kong's ongoing pro-democracy demonstrations. The newspaper noted Filipino solidarity with Hong Kong in its pursuit for full-fledged democracy, noting shared political values and the Philippines' own struggle for democracy in the past. The newspaper's reactions to the demonstrations, in this case, have been highly aligned with those of the major media across the world, whether televised, printed, or social.
However, for the long-term resident of the Philippines, the Filipino solidarity on the issue of democracy smacks quite a bit of irony when considering democracy's ups and downs in this country. The Filipino version of democracy had often involved domination by powerful landowning local clans, who monopolize higher offices through a combination of financial subsidies, patronage of supporters, and coercion. Democracy has had the unintended effect of entrenching political and economic inequality to a degree not so dissimilar with the order of the day in Hong Kong today.
With that said, it is without a doubt that democracy has certain merits, and if those terms can be fully implemented, democracy itself ought to be fully endorsed. But the downsides, as mentioned above, should also be noted as possibilities. After all, as a political system, democracy, like others, is simply a tool to achieve something, not an end result in itself. Sure, for the liberal mindset, the very symbolism of being truly democratic may bring euphoric head-rush in the short-term, but without meticulous consideration for what it hopes to achieve, the joy can quickly be derailed.
Which leads to the important question: what is the dissatisfaction that Hong Kongers today feel, that they hope to be corrected by implementation of full democracy. Well, simply said, they want to be able to elect whoever they want, not just those approved by Beijing. So what are wrong with the candidates nominated by Beijing. Well, they often have, more than the interest of Hong Kongers, that of Beijing in their minds. After all, if Beijing sponsors one's political career, then one ought to be answerable to many of Beijing's demands upon the city.
So...what exactly do the pro-Beijing leaders of Hong Kong do that the "anti-Beijing" ones will not. In the context of not going too extreme (i.e. attempting to declare Hong Kong's formal independence from China, for instance), the "anti-Beijing" leaders would be expected to steer Hong Kong away from the close interaction it has with the Chinese mainland today. Number of mainland visitors would be curtailed, mainlanders will be restricted in how they put their money in the city (in a bid to control inflation and local anger stemming from it), and reduce resource dependence from the north.
Yet, despite the desires of the (middle-class and young) Hong Kongers as invoked above, the reality of the highly unequal city may see a "Filipino moment" when democracy is actually implemented. With politico-business oligarchs storing much of the city's riches and controlling much of its affairs, it is not at all inconceivable that implementation of democracy will see them pulling the strings behind the scenes. And given that a significant segment of these tycoons' wealth are accumulated in mainland China-related businesses, it will be hard for them to ignore Beijing's political demands.
In light of this line of logic, it is rather difficult to understand why the protesters are so sure that Beijing's influence can be gotten rid of simply with full democracy. In the hypothetical case that protesters emerge victorious and an anti-Beijing candidate is elected into the city's leadership, it is hard to gauge whether the leader can balance the expectation of the middle-class to roll back what they see as Beijing's continued infiltration of the city's cultural and political life against the demands of the city's economic elite that relations with the north is kept not so confrontational.
The Filipino case illustrate that it is highly likely for the latter to win out in the end, disappointing the majority. Sure, new protests can emerge to demand further policies insulating Hong Kong from the mainland's creeping incursions into every sphere of life, but the growing inequality that marks the city's economic reality will force out the most radical, either through emigration that see them lose hop in the city's independent future, or "buy outs" from the elites that see them making ends meet through business activities involving the mainland. Either way, democracy does not solve problems in Hong Kong's case, just has it has not in the Filipino one.
However, for the long-term resident of the Philippines, the Filipino solidarity on the issue of democracy smacks quite a bit of irony when considering democracy's ups and downs in this country. The Filipino version of democracy had often involved domination by powerful landowning local clans, who monopolize higher offices through a combination of financial subsidies, patronage of supporters, and coercion. Democracy has had the unintended effect of entrenching political and economic inequality to a degree not so dissimilar with the order of the day in Hong Kong today.
With that said, it is without a doubt that democracy has certain merits, and if those terms can be fully implemented, democracy itself ought to be fully endorsed. But the downsides, as mentioned above, should also be noted as possibilities. After all, as a political system, democracy, like others, is simply a tool to achieve something, not an end result in itself. Sure, for the liberal mindset, the very symbolism of being truly democratic may bring euphoric head-rush in the short-term, but without meticulous consideration for what it hopes to achieve, the joy can quickly be derailed.
Which leads to the important question: what is the dissatisfaction that Hong Kongers today feel, that they hope to be corrected by implementation of full democracy. Well, simply said, they want to be able to elect whoever they want, not just those approved by Beijing. So what are wrong with the candidates nominated by Beijing. Well, they often have, more than the interest of Hong Kongers, that of Beijing in their minds. After all, if Beijing sponsors one's political career, then one ought to be answerable to many of Beijing's demands upon the city.
So...what exactly do the pro-Beijing leaders of Hong Kong do that the "anti-Beijing" ones will not. In the context of not going too extreme (i.e. attempting to declare Hong Kong's formal independence from China, for instance), the "anti-Beijing" leaders would be expected to steer Hong Kong away from the close interaction it has with the Chinese mainland today. Number of mainland visitors would be curtailed, mainlanders will be restricted in how they put their money in the city (in a bid to control inflation and local anger stemming from it), and reduce resource dependence from the north.
Yet, despite the desires of the (middle-class and young) Hong Kongers as invoked above, the reality of the highly unequal city may see a "Filipino moment" when democracy is actually implemented. With politico-business oligarchs storing much of the city's riches and controlling much of its affairs, it is not at all inconceivable that implementation of democracy will see them pulling the strings behind the scenes. And given that a significant segment of these tycoons' wealth are accumulated in mainland China-related businesses, it will be hard for them to ignore Beijing's political demands.
In light of this line of logic, it is rather difficult to understand why the protesters are so sure that Beijing's influence can be gotten rid of simply with full democracy. In the hypothetical case that protesters emerge victorious and an anti-Beijing candidate is elected into the city's leadership, it is hard to gauge whether the leader can balance the expectation of the middle-class to roll back what they see as Beijing's continued infiltration of the city's cultural and political life against the demands of the city's economic elite that relations with the north is kept not so confrontational.
The Filipino case illustrate that it is highly likely for the latter to win out in the end, disappointing the majority. Sure, new protests can emerge to demand further policies insulating Hong Kong from the mainland's creeping incursions into every sphere of life, but the growing inequality that marks the city's economic reality will force out the most radical, either through emigration that see them lose hop in the city's independent future, or "buy outs" from the elites that see them making ends meet through business activities involving the mainland. Either way, democracy does not solve problems in Hong Kong's case, just has it has not in the Filipino one.
Comments
Post a Comment