Election apathy is inevitable when voters are denied a free choice
- Voters at last Sunday’s “patriots-only” poll had to choose between pro-establishment contenders. Many regarded this as no choice at all
Drones lit up the night sky on the eve of Hong Kong’s District Council election with the message: “Vote tomorrow.”
Most of the city’s registered voters, however, chose not to heed the call. The turnout for last Sunday’s election was a dismal 27.54 per cent, the lowest since Hong Kong returned to China 26 years ago. This unprecedented level of voter apathy was no surprise. The election was the first since a dramatic shake-up of the system to ensure only “patriots” could stand. Not one opposition candidate secured enough nominations to compete. Voters were, therefore, left with a choice between contenders from the pro-establishment camp. Many regarded this as no choice at all.
The slashing of directly-elected seats from almost 95 per cent to 19 per cent, with the rest appointed by the government or chosen by committees stacked with its supporters, further dampened interest.
Officials had gone to extraordinary lengths to get people out to vote. There were public appeals, posters, television advertisements and social media posts, culminating in “District Council Election Fun Day” with concerts, exhibitions, and fairs. All this for a turnout more than eight percentage points short of the previous low in 1999.
It is a far cry from the last District Council election, during anti-government protests in 2019, which saw a record turnout of 71.23 per cent and a landslide victory for the opposition.
Hong Kong’s first ‘patriots-only’ district poll is ‘real, functioning democracy’
The government put a brave face on the lack of enthusiasm. Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu described the turn out as “good”. Some had predicted it could be as low as 20 per cent.
But if you deny voters a free choice and greatly reduce the influence of those they elect, apathy is inevitable. Opposition supporters, meanwhile, could register their disapproval of the reforms by simply not voting.
Officials have trumpeted the virtues of the new system, intended to screen out disruptive anti-government candidates and to return the councils to their traditional role as local advisory bodies. The poll was said to have been freed from politicisation and populism. Sadly, it was also freed from many voters.
A court challenge to the new election arrangements failed but it raised issues that deserve attention. Mr Justice Russell Coleman found the tough nomination threshold made becoming a candidate significantly more difficult, but did not amount to an excessive restriction on the right to stand.
Candidates must secure at least three nominations from each of three district committees whose members are appointed by the government.
The committee members not only nominate candidates. They can also stand for election themselves. The case revealed more than 75 per cent of candidates nominated in the directly-elected polls were committee members.
“Whilst fortune favours the brave, perhaps prudence favours oneself,” said the judge. He added: “As it turns out the ‘gatekeepers’ have opened the gates mainly for themselves.”
Hong Kong district council election: can the ‘patriotic’ winners deliver?
No matter how worthy the committee members are, their ability to nominate each other and form the majority undermines the system. No wonder “outsiders” had difficulty securing nominations.
The judge also highlighted the extensive measures introduced to keep out any candidate whose loyalty might be questioned, including a review of the eligibility of nominated candidates. It was something of an understatement, he said, to refer to this as a “belt and braces” approach, adding that when it comes to being prepared even a boy scout might be impressed.
Officials argue the barriers to entry are necessary to keep out “troublemakers” and ensure councillors constructively serve the community. But the successful management of district affairs relies on public engagement and support, while the legitimacy of any election depends largely on the extent to which voters participate.
Next time, the gates to candidacy must be opened wider. The government should “be prepared” to allow opposition hopefuls a reasonable chance to stand. Then, perhaps, the call to “vote tomorrow” will be answered.
