3 ms·

1950s: >Grantham convinced London to scrap all plans for political reform on the basis that it did not "interest the British electorate". Later, when confronte

by bllguo 5y ago

1950s: >Grantham convinced London to scrap all plans for political reform on the basis that it did not "interest the British electorate". Later, when confronted by the Hong Kong public, he blamed London. 1980s: >British Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe further promised the democratic process would start "in the years immediately ahead", but they stalled due to opposition from Beijing, local business interests as represented by Executive Council, and the British Foreign Office under the pretext that it would bring chaos to Hong Kong. Not nearly as simple as you are portraying it either..

arcticbull 5y ago
You are definitely correct. However, in the 90s: ... in 1992, Chris Patten the new governor of Hong Kong, began moves to unilaterally democratise the territory by allowing for the election of half the Legislative Council by universal suffrage, and in the process incurring the wrath of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Patten had judged that: "People in Hong Kong are perfectly capable of taking a greater share in managing their own affairs in a way that is responsible, mature, restrained, sensible" [edit] If I had to speculate I'd say the 50s were primarily due to the aftermath of WWII and reconstruction in Europe and that PRC influence was basically all of the subsequent reluctance. After all, the UK was already taking steps to divest itself of the colonies at that point and had little interest in maintaining Hong Kong one way or the other. Was Hong Kong not to be a halo territory for democracy in the region? Given the state of freedom in Hong Kong vs the PRC one could take the position that substantially all the 'western' freedoms enjoyed in Hong Kong are in fact enjoyed thanks to the British.
- bllguo 5y ago
  yeah it's complicated, "Britain would have instituted constitutional democracy in HK but China opposed it" is just too reductive. After all there was (and still is) opposition among HKers themselves to the idea, too. And there were British parties resistant as well, ex. Governor MacLehose, it wasn't unanimous by any means
  - true_religion 5y ago
    Honestly, how much can Britain love democracy as it remains a constitutional monarchy with a near centurion who has veto rights over everything and all laws are enforced in her name? Disclaimer: I'm not saying UK is a dictatorship, but if you pay "lip service" in the hundreds of millions to billions of pounds then you really can't claim that the monarch is a mere figurehead.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      It's not just in the UK - Canada, Australia and New Zealand to name a few are all constitutional monarchies. To your point, they're not democracies, they're constitutional monarchies - but functionally that's inconsequential in this day and age. In large part because if the royals ever exercised their veto, the whole system would fall in on itself. It's been over a hundred years since the last veto in any commonwealth realm near as I can figure. I've nothing against the monarchy because it makes the highest elected office in the land a public servant - as it should be. It's small, but it's meaningful IMO. To me your question is roughly equivalent to asking "how much can the US care about democracy when it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic? The president has veto power, and look how fancy the White House is!" Canada, the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand and many other modern systems are ruled with the consent of the governed, and they pick their functional leaders. The rest is an implementation detail, with various pros and cons.
      - Stevvo 5y ago
        "It's been over a hundred years since the last veto in any commonwealth realm near as I can figure." The Queen last exercised her veto in 1999. Nothing fell in on itself and that is by design; the Queen is sovereign and parliament is subordinate to her.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        > The Queen last exercised her veto in 1999. Nothing fell in on itself and that is by design; the Queen is sovereign and parliament is subordinate to her. I may not have been eloquent but I meant in matters outside of the UK. Trust me, if the Queen tried to withhold Royal Ascent in Canada it would trigger a constitutional crisis. I'm sure this is true elsewhere.

by bllguo 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

You are definitely correct. However, in the 90s: ... in 1992, Chris Patten the new governor of Hong Kong, began moves to unilaterally democratise the territory by allowing for the election of half the Legislative Council by universal suffrage, and in the process incurring the wrath of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Patten had judged that: "People in Hong Kong are perfectly capable of taking a greater share in managing their own affairs in a way that is responsible, mature, restrained, sensible" [edit] If I had to speculate I'd say the 50s were primarily due to the aftermath of WWII and reconstruction in Europe and that PRC influence was basically all of the subsequent reluctance. After all, the UK was already taking steps to divest itself of the colonies at that point and had little interest in maintaining Hong Kong one way or the other. Was Hong Kong not to be a halo territory for democracy in the region? Given the state of freedom in Hong Kong vs the PRC one could take the position that substantially all the 'western' freedoms enjoyed in Hong Kong are in fact enjoyed thanks to the British.

bllguo 5y ago
yeah it's complicated, "Britain would have instituted constitutional democracy in HK but China opposed it" is just too reductive. After all there was (and still is) opposition among HKers themselves to the idea, too. And there were British parties resistant as well, ex. Governor MacLehose, it wasn't unanimous by any means
- true_religion 5y ago
  Honestly, how much can Britain love democracy as it remains a constitutional monarchy with a near centurion who has veto rights over everything and all laws are enforced in her name? Disclaimer: I'm not saying UK is a dictatorship, but if you pay "lip service" in the hundreds of millions to billions of pounds then you really can't claim that the monarch is a mere figurehead.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    It's not just in the UK - Canada, Australia and New Zealand to name a few are all constitutional monarchies. To your point, they're not democracies, they're constitutional monarchies - but functionally that's inconsequential in this day and age. In large part because if the royals ever exercised their veto, the whole system would fall in on itself. It's been over a hundred years since the last veto in any commonwealth realm near as I can figure. I've nothing against the monarchy because it makes the highest elected office in the land a public servant - as it should be. It's small, but it's meaningful IMO. To me your question is roughly equivalent to asking "how much can the US care about democracy when it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic? The president has veto power, and look how fancy the White House is!" Canada, the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand and many other modern systems are ruled with the consent of the governed, and they pick their functional leaders. The rest is an implementation detail, with various pros and cons.
    - Stevvo 5y ago
      "It's been over a hundred years since the last veto in any commonwealth realm near as I can figure." The Queen last exercised her veto in 1999. Nothing fell in on itself and that is by design; the Queen is sovereign and parliament is subordinate to her.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        > The Queen last exercised her veto in 1999. Nothing fell in on itself and that is by design; the Queen is sovereign and parliament is subordinate to her. I may not have been eloquent but I meant in matters outside of the UK. Trust me, if the Queen tried to withhold Royal Ascent in Canada it would trigger a constitutional crisis. I'm sure this is true elsewhere.