But, all in all, I agree. As I've written in another thread: The grievances of HK's population are real: a political and business establishment dominated by property tycoons (and increasingly mainland Chinese political factions) keen on maintaining their privileged position; huge economic inequality; a slow erosion of political liberties ("salami tactic").
That all, of course, gave rise to the Umbrella Movement in 2014.
However, given that the Chinese Communist Party is not inclined to weaken its grip on power, and extremely protective of the (perceived) territorial integrity of China, I don't really see how this will end well. :-/ Here's hoping.
For perspective, BTW: In 1997, HK's GDP was about one sixth of China's (even though China has 200x the people), and HK was an important conduit between China and the world: HK's port had more volume than Shanghai and Shenzhen together.
Today, HK's GDP is barely 3% of China's, and the ports of Shanghai and Shenzhen together have 3x the throughput of HK. (Just have a look at these pictures: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478975/Shanghai-por.... )
HK used to be hugely important for China. Now, it isn't, and with rising Chinese nationalism, HK is being seen more and more like an unruly and spoiled child.
I am really waiting for a NY Times article that has some angle about what China can teach us, not what they should learn from us.
For the last 30 years we have been getting continuous dispatches that Communism with Chinese characteristics will fail into economic collapse, that it's an enormous bubble, that the economy can't grow without democracy, that Hong Kong needs to be a model of democracy for the rest of China, etc. This mainly comes out of the "official narrative" mouth pieces known as the New York Times and the Washington Post. Whenever I see nytimes.com in the sourcee I'm always thinking, ok what's the new angle that everyone's supposed to believe now? It would be better if they just gave the byline to someone at the State Department or the CIA.
Other things, not so much.
And speaking of "democracy" is a two party system really all that much better or different than a one party system?
But, yes, even a two party democracy is better than a one party authoritarian regime.
The current government is IMHO doing a great job. Even on issues that they aren't great on, they are at least trending in the right direction. Why meddle and fix something that isn't broken?
Is that what your unhelpful 'lol' implies?
I really like the Chinese people, but... their gov. is f*king evil mess against them
To be fair, the current Chinese administration (Xi Jinping) identified back in 2012 corruption as one of the greatest threats to the Communist party (rightly so for any government imho) and began an unprecedented campaign to crack down on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-corruption_campaign_under...
Right now they are having a hard enough time trying to control their citizens. They won't be a superpower until they topple a few democratically elected governments first.
Prof Lawrence Lessig of Harvard nails it when he calls this type of corruption of democracy as Tweedism.
Here's a quick summary of his thesis (2015): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE
Here's a longer, more academic, version (2014): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFZEV7TeZBg
Both talks begin with the Hong Kong student protests of 2014.
They give the example of Venice which had (for the time) relatively inclusive systems, allowing a a middle class to rise and generate wealth for the city. This new elite started to limit political inclusiveness to protect their wealth. This tipped the scale back to extractive systems. By the 1500s Venice was in decline.
This example makes me wonder if we're headed that way. In Hong Kong -- but also e.g. in the US -- it seems there's a class of mega rich that are moving more and more into rent seeking behavior and greater income inequality. If the book's theory is right this will lead to political systems to become less inclusive over time, which will eventually lead to economic decline.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail [2] http://www.economist.com/node/21549911
Also, titans of economy should not be given the reins of running the country, no matter how qualified they might be. They already have a lot of power. In poorer countries, political ascendants are shot dead. In the US, you have attack ads, smear campaigns etc.
Frankly with the level which facts and reason have been shown to be utterly useless in the political arena, there's no way we'll avoid this fate unless the 1% themselves come to the conclusion that their lobbying and consolidation of power will ultimately destroy the country. However I'm not holding my breath for this to happen since game theory and Upton Sinclair inform us that's not how human interest generally works.
During the booming 70s-90s, just about all high level government officials were appointed by the British. In addition, most of the upper class were British as well.
Local Hongkongers were often second class citizens.
Likewise, when Singapore, Korea, and Taiwan were booming, they were essentially dictatorships.
Heck, compare South Africa and Zimbabwe during the apartheid era to now.
Chauvinists don't like to admit it but they are at least partly responsible for the ROC and ROK's success too.
> Heck, compare South Africa and Zimbabwe during the apartheid era to now.
What happened a shame but the whites in those country are now sleeping in the bed they made.
The current leader, Abe Shinzo, is actively working on dismantling what little semblance of democracy remains, including silencing the press and passing laws to lock up anyone who "plans to protest" against his government.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-t...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/27/the-silencing-of-japans...
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/03/21/national/crime-l...
I think economic success has more to do with access to American markets, and being a 'strategic partner' in cold war geo-political games, then it did with your form of government.
Of course it is just a data point, but that's may reveal underlying things that totally foreign for European/West way of thinking politics.
Seems like democracy would make this problem worse, since it redistributes power to local informal power elites.
When elderly Chinese who actually experienced the terrible Culture Revolution go to visit Taiwan, many of them had the feeling that Taiwan make them feel young again as they saw the Culture Revolution again in Taiwan.
Endless street politics for every single change to the society, hugely divided society, corruption from both sides, people are forced to pick which side is less terrible rather than which is better, President democratically elected used its official jet to move cash to foreign countries.
Personally, I don't want such toxic Taiwan to be integrated back to China, they can run their own circus on that island so people in the mainland can look at them and learn from their mistakes.
Taiwan is nothing like what you said, and to compare it to Cultural Revolution China is just ridiculous.
[0] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2948872-land-and-the-ruli...
I agree all of it until "to redress these imbalances", i.e. letting the local elite rule Hong Kong was a deliberate decision by Beijing. Back then (before/during the hand-over to China), nobody knew how it's gonna work. And as of now, that decision turned out to be a failure. But letting non-elite factions to participate does not guarantee "redress the imbalances". see my comments below
> or do you think, even with universal suffrage, the citizens of Hong Kong are too fractured to come up with solutions? (Similar to the current political climate in the US.)
I do feel there's very fertile soil for political populism (not in a good way) in Hong Kong. What universal suffrage does guarantee is the emergence of a new class of pure/traditional politicians, probably armed with populist rhetorics... Are they gonna "redress the imbalance?", certainly they would say so, but... wait, I'm starting to have a deja-vu...
Well, until it's too late, and the torches and pitchforks come out.
Am I wrong?
The last sentence from 'Animal Farm'?
The Chinese will not allow HK to become a threat to the Chinese way of life as determined by the CCP. They will loot the city of its riches, then bring it into line. The writing was on the wall for HK from day one of their transition back to Chinese rule.
But based on what you say, that sounds exactly like the narrative of authoritarianism vs. democracy. You have a bunch of elites with no responsibility that are tremendously disliked in power. In a democracy, they'd (theoretically) fear losing an election to a populist. Heck, even if they were regular despots, they'd be at least marginally afraid of revolution. But the elites in Hong Kong are installed by China; they have no fear of even a revolution.
The entitlement is a result of technology equalizing the playing field making things egalitarian. To rationalize why a simple job pays thousands of times more than backbreaking or highly technical jobs in poorer areas, this society has to feel superior in some way.
Few people seem to notice that in a perfectky fair world, the highest populations have the greatest advantages.
Another thing often ignored is that there isn't enough to go around. Divided equally the world's wealth is 10k each. Livable only if the world's cost of living is equalized as well. However in the Bay Area I cannot buy the 1 dollar delicious meals in other parts of the world.
When there are only a few immigrant going to a sinecure society, it is friendly. However once resources become strained you get tribes, boundaries, and rationalizations for more pie.
Poor sportsmanship is present in all states no matter the economic system.
The same problems afflicting hong kong is afflicting all modern neoliberal cities - new york, LA, chicago, london, etc.
Where the elite want to increase real estate/asset prices and the younger generation are left behind.
And then caretoomuch sells us a long narrative about the problem really being elitist rulers oppressing the poor.
It's very easy to buy into narratives such as authoritarianism vs democracy, communism vs capitalism, China vs Britain/West, tight control vs freedom as the reasons for Hong Kong's decline, but that's just short-circuited thinking for the lazy.
The real reason for Hong Kong's decline, is the failure/irresponsibility of Hong Kong's elite ruling class. Maybe to many people's surprise, since its handover to China, Hong Kong has effectively been ruled by the local elites, NOT by Beijing. Sure, Beijing appoints the governor, but the governors are locals, and there was never any direct "order" from Beijing, well, sorta until recently, when Beijing began to see the failure of the local Hong Kong government.
Those elites are composed of mega real estate/business tycoons. Being the elites in the most capitalist city-state in the world gives them tremendous wealth and power, but to the disappointment of Spider-man, with that great power there's no great responsibilities. The ruling class mega riches don't see income inequality as a problem, but a badge of honor for themselves, to show how "they've made it", while all the poors are just not smart/hardworking enough. Any efforts to "appease the poor" are hindered by the ruling business-politician symbiotics, because those efforts get in their way of accumulating more wealth.
The frustration of the youth and the poor stems from the sense of inequality, unfairness and despair as they see no chances of upward mobility. Yet, even the poorest in Hong Kong is a capitalist at heart, so they are poor not because of the rich, and they certainly do work hard, then who's to blame? China, Beijing, the mainlanders, because they are evil, communist, denying tian'anmen square, yada yada...
On the contrary, when the ruling rich saw the rebellion of lower class, without knowing/admitting themselves are to be blamed, they seek help from Beijing. What does Beijing know about governing a country? More control! That's the only thing Beijing knows, and it's been working (kinda) with them. So that's how we get where we are now.