> the deliberate limits on participatory democracy imposed by Beijing are limiting the ability of the non-elite factions to redress these imbalances

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...

I dunno, generally the best argument for democracy is when things come out of balance, there is a mechanism to adjust how things work without violent revolution (which generally necessitates a greater level of destruction than is advisable). Since the general impression of Hong Kong democracy is "yeah, we'll let you vote, but the party is going to have the last word" it's hard to imagine a scenario whereby the status quo (i.e. current elites) will ever be allowed to be threatened.

Well, until it's too late, and the torches and pitchforks come out.

Am I wrong?

You are not wrong. Nobody would argue that reasoning. But seeing what populism could leads to, and based on my experience in Hong Kong, I'm just a bit cynical that the reality probably won't turn out to be what it "should have been".

> wait, I'm starting to have a deja-vu...

The last sentence from 'Animal Farm'?