'Democracy or nothing' is no choice for a better Hong Kong
Franklin Koo says the debate on what Hong Kong needs for a better future has been too narrowly framed from the start. Pro-democracy activists should rethink their method for success
When we were young, we were often taught to solve problems with only one clear and correct answer. There was a reason for that; it was much more efficient, easier to grade, and the solution safeguards against any evaluator harbouring prejudices or subjective views. For instance, we were often given multiple-choice questions.
However, while this method is a cost-efficient way of testing, real-life problems are never solved in such a fashion. The methodology is too simple to account for other important factors and, in many ways, it hinders our ability to make objective and informed judgments.
Consider this question: Please choose one of the following that may lead to a positive future for Hong Kong: A. Fascism; B. Anarchy; C. Democracy.
The majority are likely to choose C, simply because the other alternatives are not desirable for a positive future. However, the framing of the issue has already limited the scope and complexity of other pressing issues. This is a common conceptual problem, leading us to believe that C is the only correct solution for a positive future. But is democracy really what the doctor ordered to cure ailing Hong Kong?
The definition of a "positive future" is different for everyone. A utilitarian would favour happiness; an economist, wealth; a youth may look for steady employment opportunities and affordable living; and, an elderly person, health care, clean air and free space.
Democracy itself is just as unclear. There are pros and cons to it, just like any other form of government. Ironically, even with democracy in 2017, there is currently no leader or candidate in Hong Kong that could win the popular vote. One thing is for sure, universal suffrage does not guarantee a positive future; no democratic country has reached utopia - not even close.
With that in mind, consider the basic underlying argument of the Occupy Central movement based on the following formula: Democracy = A Positive Future for Hong Kong. This is the foundation of the protests and the essence of what demonstrators are fighting for. However, democracy cannot be switched on with a simple push of a button, so supporters believe civil disobedience is required, so this formula has evolved into: Democracy + Civil Disobedience = A Positive Future for Hong Kong.
Students are led to believe this is the one and only formula, but there is no evidence to prove that the formula is sound. Also, democracy is also often equated with words such as liberty and freedom, but this concept is not without its critics. As a quote widely circulated on the internet says: "Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99 per cent vote." After over a month of occupation, it appears that the formula lacks its most important element - the essential conclusion for Hong Kong's future, as the leaders are becoming increasingly unsure as to where the protests will lead. The Occupy movement is still going on because the students sincerely believe democracy and civil disobedience are required to secure Hong Kong's future.
READ MORE: To view all the latest Occupy Central stories click here
Who can blame them when our school system is notorious for its emphasis on a single correct answer and rote learning? Hence, when faced with the limited political options available, democracy becomes a desirable fall-back choice. But, given the current circumstances and Hong Kong's unique relationship with mainland China, can democracy realistically guarantee Hong Kong a positive future and solve its many political and social problems? Or is democracy the simple answer to choose, one that avoids the difficult task of addressing each problem individually?
Let's consider other possibilities. Indeed, we could substitute many other variables for "Democracy + Civil Disobedience" - within the confines of the Basic Law - just as there are infinite possibilities for, say, X+Y=10. Democracy + Civil Disobedience was never the formula for success before 1997, and Hong Kong did just fine. Singapore is also doing fine under an "authoritarian democracy", which suggests that any formula will evolve and change to meet the current environment.
If anything, there is probably only one constant in the development of Hong Kong, and that is the rule of law. So we could say that: Rule of Law + X + Y = A Positive Future for Hong Kong. This is why any injunctions and laws ought to be obeyed, because this is the basic foundation on which our livelihoods are governed.
With each day of the prolonged occupation, the rule of law is being eroded, risking Hong Kong's one constant and consistent factor in its rise from a fishing village to an international economic hub. Based on the above formula, this is one variable Hong Kong cannot erode, as any degradation in the rule of law would also degrade the positive future.
Hong Kong is at an important juncture. The government, the protesters and other residents will need to think deeper and identify the real causes of frustration, since there is no one "be all and end all" formula. Whatever the future holds for Hong Kong, solving its problems will not be as easy as answering a multiple-choice question. Reality does not offer the opportunity to simply guess the correct answer if you don't know the answer. The risk of being incorrect is too great, and our rule of law too important to risk.
There is no certain formula that can ensure our future, so it is time to end the civil disobedience and mend the divide, protect our rule of law, and move forward as a society to find all the "Xs" and "Ys" necessary to secure Hong Kong's future.
