Rethinking the Process of Political Reform in Hong Kong

Abstract

In a historic vote on 18 June 2015, the Hong Kong government failed to obtain the support of two-third of all 70 Legislative Council (LegCo) members for its proposal on universal suffrage of the chief executive. Many reasons have been given for why the reform efforts failed. Little attention, however, has been paid to how the process of reform itself may have contributed to the demise of the reform enterprise. It is argued that the nature and significance of the reform exercise deserved a more participatory process than the one adopted, ie one that involved more meaningful contributions from the public at important moments in the process. Receiving meaningful contributions at important moments means that the public is consulted initially not only on reform issues but also on draft reform proposals before they are finalised. It also means that the relevant reform bodies should include membership from independent individuals, whether as experts or representatives of the public. The Hong Kong government should also have consulted and secured agreement with legislators on the process of reform before commencing the reform exercise. If the stakeholders agreed at the outset that the process to be followed would be fair and transparent, it would be more likely that they would accept the outcome from that process.