Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T00:44:30.958Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Governing Elites, External Events and Pro-democratic Opposition in Hong Kong (1986–2002)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Ming Sing
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While China has been the most important constraint on Hong Kong's democratization, another neglected constraint has been the limited mobilization power of the pro-democracy opposition in both civil and political society for most of the period from 1984 to 2002. The mobilization power of the pro-democracy opposition, mediated by their degree of internal unity and ability to capitalize on external political opportunities, affected its overall bargaining power vis-à-vis the Chinese and British government over democratization in different phases. The self-censorship among Hong Kong's media, plus economic recession since the Handover, further sapped the mobilization and bargaining power of pro-democratic forces.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , 2003 , pp. 456 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2003.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 P. Lee and L. Chu, ‘Inherent Dependence on Power: The Hong Kong Press in Political Transition’, Media, Culture and Society, 20: 1 (1998), pp. 59–77.

2 See A. Przeworski, Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 24; S. P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman, Okla., University of Oklahoma Press, 1991, pp. 165–74.

3 S. P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, op. cit.

4 G. A. O’Donnell, ‘Introduction to the Latin American Cases’, Guillermo O’Donnell, P. Schmitter and L. Whitehead (eds), The Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, Part II, London, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986, pp. 3–72; D. Share, ‘Transitions to Democracy and Transition Through Transaction’, Comparative Political Studies, 19: 4 (1987), pp. 552–48.

5 For instance, democratization in Brazil, Spain and Taiwan followed this pattern. See D. Share and S. Mainwaring, ‘Transitions Through Transaction: Democratization in Brazil and Spain’, in W. A. Selcher (ed.), Political Liberalization in Brazil, Boulder, Colo., Westview Press, p. 175.

6 F. S. Ledgister, Class Alliances and the Liberal Authoritarian State, Trenton, Africa World Press, 1998, pp. 1–25.

7 L. Diamond, Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999, p. 234 and ‘Economic Development and Democracy Reconsidered’, American Behavioural Scientist, 35: 4/5 (1992), pp. 483–84; P. C. Manuel, ‘Civil Society and Democratisation in Europe: Comparative Perspectives – Introduction’, Perspectives on Political Science, 27: 3 (1998), p. 133; M. Kamrava and Frank O. Mora, ‘Civil Society and Democratisation in Comparative Perspective: Latin America and the Middle East’, Third World Quarterly, 19: 5 (1998), pp. 893–84.

8 S. Kim, The Politics of Democratisation in Korea: The Role of Civil Society, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000, pp. 137–50; R. B. Collier, Paths Towards Democracy: The Working Class and Elites in Western Europe and South America, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 188–93; J. J. Linz and A. Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation, op. cit; M. Bratton and N. Van de Walle, Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 272–3.

9 R. B. Collier, Paths Towards Democracy, op. cit. p. 19.

10 J. J. Linz and A. Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation, op. cit., p. 272; A. Stepan, Arguing Comparative Politics, Oxford University Press, 2001.

11 R. B. Collier, Paths Towards Democracy, op. cit.; J. J. Linz and A. Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation, op. cit.; A. Stepan, Arguing Comparative Politics, op. cit. p. 174; O. G. Encarnacion, ‘Civil society and the consolidation of democracy in Spain’, Political Science Quarterly, 53 (2001); J. S. Dryzek and L. Holmes, ‘The Real World of Civil Republicanism: Making Democracy Work in Poland and the Czech Republic’, Europe-Asia Studies, January 2000.

12 Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, Xinhua News Agency (Hong Kong Branch), 1984.

13 I. Scott, Political Change and The Crisis of Legitimacy in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 287.

14 See White Paper: The Future Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Government Printer, November 1984, p. 8.

15 S. H. Lo, The Politics of Democratization in Hong Kong, London, Macmillan Press, 1996.

16 The JCPDG and the HKASPDM had shared more or less the same leaders in 1989. Since some leaders of the JCPDG including Martin Lee and Szeto Wah had become well known for their struggles for democratic reform by 1989, the overlapping leadership of the two bodies had lent credibility to the latter and significantly enhanced the mobilization power of the Alliance, as it managed to get over a million Hong Kong people to take to the streets on two occasions to demand not just democratic reform for China but also for Hong Kong (South China Morning Post [Hong Kong English language newspaper], 25 May 1989).

17 In May 1989, 55.1 per cent were not confident about the implementation, a sharp rise from 39 per cent in September 1988. See Ming Pao, 29 September 1988.

18 See Public Opinion Polls on Patten's Reform, Social Science Research Centre, University of Hong Kong, 1992–94.

19 See Minutes of JAPOD, 26 November 1992.

20 E. Bjornlund and C. Chung, The Promise of Democratisation in Hong Kong: The Chief Executive Election and the Transition Five Years after Reversion, National Democratic Institute, 2002.

21 T. Y. Lau and Y. M. To, ‘Walking a Tight Rope: Hong Kong's Media Facing Political and Economic Challenges Since Sovereignty Transfer’, in M. K. Chan and A. Y. So (eds), Crisis and Transformation in China's Hong Kong, New York, M. E. Sharpe, 2002, p. 327.

22 Ibid.

23 A survey of journalists conducted in 2001 about press freedom confirmed that while 14 per cent of journalists regarded self-censorship as serious, 61 per cent believed it was not. See Chris Yeung, ‘Hong Kong Media in the Changing Political Landscape’, Harvard Asia Quarterly, 1 January 2002.

24 Martin Lee, Szeto Wah and Lau Chin-shek are examples.

25 See Hansard, 29, 30 June 1994.

26 Based on an interview with an activist, Chan Siu Ping, 18 July 2000.

27 Interview (Chang Hung), 24 July 2000.

28 Based upon my interview with the vice-chairman of the Democratic Party, Lee Wing-tat, on 3 August 2001. Another leader, Ho Chun-yan, conveyed the same message during another interview on 18 July 2001.

29 These included the Rev. Yiu Ming Chu, Father Keloon Ha and Hei Wah Ho.

30 See the various Minutes of the DDN.

31 See E. Bjornlund and C. Chung, The Promise of Democratisation in Hong Kong: The Chief Executive Election and the Transition Five Years after Reversion, National Democratic Institute, 2002; Chris Yeung, ‘Hong Kong Media in the Changing Political Landscape’, Harvard Asia Quarterly, 1 January 2002.

32 Sonia E. Alvarez and Arturo Escobar, ‘Conclusion: Theoretical and Horizons of Change in Contemporary Latin American Social Movements’, in Arturo Escobar and Sonia E. Alvarez (eds), The Making of Social Movements in Latin America, Boulder, Colo., Westview Press, 1992, pp. 317–30.

33 S. Kim, ‘Civil Societies in South Korea: From Grand Democracy Movements to Petty Interest Groups?’, op. cit. and The Politics of Democratisation in Korea: the Role of Civil Society, op. cit.; O. G. Encarnacion, ‘Civil Society and the Consolidation of Democracy in Spain’, op. cit.; Steven Levitsky, ‘The Paradox of Menemism: Parties, Civil Society, and the Relative Success of Argentine Democracy in the 1990s’, Paper for the Conference on Advances and Setbacks in the Third Wave of Democratisation in Latin America, Kellogg Institute for International Affairs, Notre Dame University, 23–24 April 2001, p. 17; Enrique Peruzzotti, ‘The Nature of the New Argentine Democracy. The Delegative Democracy Argument Revisited’, Journal of Latin American Studies, February 2001.