Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

REGULATING POLITICAL PARTIES IN HONG KONG

Introduction
Since they emerged in the 1980s, Hong Kong political parties have struggled to
develop and establish themselves. They were discouraged by the British for most of
the period when they ran Hong Kong. To this day, political parties confront a range
of obstacles to healthy growth, including the denial of any governmental role to
parties based on electoral popularity, limited public support, the limited law-making
role allowed Legco, the negative impact of the functional constituency system, a selfchosen
preference for politics based primarily on opposition rather than policy
development and the watchful anxiety (especially in relation to pro-democracy parties)
of Beijing.
Limitations within the electoral-political-infrastructure (EPI) comprise one further
inhibiting factor. EPI reform is really a “stand-alone” issue, however. That is, it can
be looked at separately from the inhibiting factors noted above. It can also be
considered outside of the rather highly-charged debate about the pace of
democratization in the HKSAR. Hong Kong needs mature, stable, policy-focussed
political parties. EPI reform can help lay better foundations for the long-term
development of all parties in Hong Kong.
My view, based on a recent research report completed for Civic Exchange (Political
Party Development in Hong Kong (PPDEVHK Report))2 is that a new Political Party
Ordinance is not needed in Hong Kong to effect EPI reform. I believe we already
have a basically sound – though incomplete – EPI governing the conduct of elections
(and, indirectly, the operation of political parties) in the HKSAR. The way forward is
to build on these essentially positive foundations using a series of legislative and
related initiatives.
The PPDEVHK Report – which forms the basis for this submission – includes a
detailed, comparative review of the Australian experience with regulating elections
and political parties. The basic regulatory system in Australia is now over 100 years
old. It has been steadily improved over time and, unlike in the US, for example, it is
widely regarded by participants from all sides of politics as working well. This makes
it, comparatively, one of the most durable and successful, electoral-regulatory
systems in the world.

IntroductionSince they emerged in the 1980s, Hong Kong political parties have struggled todevelop and establish themselves. They were discouraged by the British for most ofthe period when they ran Hong Kong. To this day, political parties confront a rangeof obstacles to healthy growth, including the denial of any governmental role toparties based on electoral popularity, limited public support, the limited law-makingrole allowed Legco, the negative impact of the functional constituency system, a selfchosenpreference for politics based primarily on opposition rather than policydevelopment and the watchful anxiety (especially in relation to pro-democracy parties)of Beijing.Limitations within the electoral-political-infrastructure (EPI) comprise one furtherinhibiting factor. EPI reform is really a “stand-alone” issue, however. That is, it canbe looked at separately from the inhibiting factors noted above. It can also beconsidered outside of the rather highly-charged debate about the pace ofdemocratization in the HKSAR. Hong Kong needs mature, stable, policy-focussedpolitical parties. EPI reform can help lay better foundations for the long-termdevelopment of all parties in Hong Kong.My view, based on a recent research report completed for Civic Exchange (PoliticalParty Development in Hong Kong (PPDEVHK Report))2 is that a new Political PartyOrdinance is not needed in Hong Kong to effect EPI reform. I believe we alreadyhave a basically sound – though incomplete – EPI governing the conduct of elections(and, indirectly, the operation of political parties) in the HKSAR. The way forward isto build on these essentially positive foundations using a series of legislative andrelated initiatives.The PPDEVHK Report – which forms the basis for this submission – includes adetailed, comparative review of the Australian experience with regulating electionsand political parties. The basic regulatory system in Australia is now over 100 yearsold. It has been steadily improved over time and, unlike in the US, for example, it iswidely regarded by participants from all sides of politics as working well. This makesit, comparatively, one of the most durable and successful, electoral-regulatorysystems in the world.

Download PDF : PPREGN-HKSAR-LEGCOSUB-CIVEX-22005-20102011

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *