HONG KONG CRISIS

“Beijing is not going to lose,” said Jeff Bader to the Washington Post on Thursday, referring to the ongoing student-led democracy protests in Hong Kong. Because, as he puts it, people in Hong Kong “have very good lives” and “don’t see democratic development as the key to a good life,” Obama’s former top Asia adviser suggests the protesters accept Beijing’s proposed procedures for the 2017 election for chief executive, the city’s top political official.

His recommendation is wrong on many counts but especially because people in Hong Kong should not legitimize the upcoming electoral contest, the process that leads to it, or the rules that govern it.

On August 31st, the National People’s Congress in Beijing issued its proposed procedures for the election. China’s rubber-stamp legislature agreed to universal suffrage but insisted on nominating procedures so restrictive that only Beijing’s hand-picked candidates could compete in the election.

The next step will be for Hong Kong’s 70-member Legislative Council to vote on whether Beijing’s proposed election rules will go into effect. If two-thirds of the legislature, known as Legco, approves, Beijing’s rules will become law. If Legco turns them down, however, the next chief executive will be selected by the existing procedure, in which a 1,200-member Election Committee, packed with Beijing loyalists, makes the choice. Whether China’s proposals are adopted or not, senior Chinese leaders will continue to choose the city’s chief executive.

Bader essentially endorses the Communist Party’s plan. “You need demonstrators and sensible leaders among the democrats to say, ‘This election China’s promised is better than what Hong Kong had before,’” he argues. “It’s universal suffrage; it’s the first time Hong Kong will ever have a competitive election for chief executive. It falls short of a free, open competitive election. But it is at least a competitive election, where candidates have to appeal to the public to win.”

Is something better than nothing? There is a surface logic to Bader’s notion that this compromise is a step forward, as the nominating rules can be liberalized in future contests. Those who agree with Bader argue that Rome was not built in a day.

Why should Hong Kong reject Beijing’s plan? Elections confer legitimacy, and Beijing’s candidates do not deserve it, unless they win in elections open to parties of all stripes.

Universal suffrage, Bader should know, by itself is useless. After all, every adult in North Korea—except for those imprisoned—has the right to vote.

Beijing needs Legco to pass its plan, in other words, to confer legitimacy. There is so much resentment there that the city has become ungovernable. The government, knowing it lacks widespread support, has become hesitant of making even minor decisions if they look to be controversial.

The lack of legitimacy has meant that each of the three chief executives has been unpopular. Leung Chun-ying, the current one, never had a honeymoon after he took over in July 2012 and now has an approval rating of just 21 percent. A stunning 57 percent of Hong Kong disapproves of his performance.

Bader’s recommended course of action would reinforce Beijing’s control over the city. That’s perhaps why, in a series of demonstrations since July, hundreds of thousands of residents have taken to the streets to say they do not want “fake democracy.”