After the promulgation and implementation of the National Security Law for Hong Kong, the fundamental reform of Hong Kong’s electoral system, and the successfully held elections of the Legislative Council and the chief executive under the new electoral arrangements, the principle of “patriots governing Hong Kong” has started to take shape in Hong Kong.
In the past few months, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government and LegCo have had positive and productive interactions. The governance of the HKSAR has been generally smooth and effective. This is a fact that is obvious to all. However, from the perspective of system building, achieving institutionalization, refinement and standardization of the executive-legislative relationship under “patriots governing Hong Kong” still requires a long period of exploration, practice, reflection and accumulation of experience. Accordingly, I can only make a few tentative “theoretical” arguments here and put forward some preliminary suggestions.
From a comparative political point of view, in most countries, members of the government and the legislature rarely come from the same political camp, force or background. Under the presidential system of the United States, even if members of a political party can control both the presidency and a majority in both houses of Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives), the cohesion of that party is usually too weak to ensure unity of action between the two branches of the political system. What complicates the situation is that there are also other opposition parties in Congress. Likewise, in the British, European, and Japanese parliamentary systems, even if a single party or a coalition of several parties can control most seats in parliament and thus is entitled to form the government, there will still be other opposition parties in their parliaments which can make life difficult for it. Whether it is in the US, Britain, European countries, or even Japan, the political differences between the opposition parties and the ruling parties are usually salient and difficult to bridge. Admittedly, in many of those developing countries that Western politicians, media and scholars characterize as “dictatorial” or “authoritarian”, the same political force, such as the military, the dominant political party, or a powerful ethnic group, controls both the government and the legislature. However, the legislature in these countries is normally a powerless body. They are most likely devoid of independent and substantive constitutional power and the constitutional function to check and balance the government.
Compared with other places, the relationship between the executive and the legislature in the HKSAR under “patriots governing Hong Kong” is unique. Under the Basic Law, both the executive and the legislature have independent constitutional powers. The chief executive of the HKSAR and all the members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong are “patriots” who share fundamental political values and proclivities, especially in terms of loyalty to the country, the central government and the HKSAR, as well as allegiance to the national Constitution and the Basic Law. The differences between them mainly come from different views on economic, social, and people’s livelihood issues and policies, and stem from the fact that these different views are related to the need for the legislators to represent and reflect the various interests of different social sectors and strata.
Since their differences are only on how to solve the actual problems in Hong Kong, there will be limited tensions between the government and the Legislative Council because of irreconcilable political differences. For most of the time since Hong Kong’s return to the motherland, the anti-China, anti-government, and radical opposition members of the Legislative Council incessantly and unscrupulously launched political struggles in the legislature, provoked violent clashes, disrupted its order, obstructed its operation, and undermined the administration of the government. Today, under the close supervision of the central government, the Election Committee and the patriotic forces, the newly elected members of the Legislative Council, who are the embodiment of “patriots governing Hong Kong”, will definitely not be as fierce, vulgar and unruly as the previous anti-China, anti-government and radical lawmakers. Physical tussles in the legislature, courting the media with improper behavior, ingratiating with the anti-China and anti-government forces in the community, or “opposing for the sake of opposition” to stand out and gain political capital, are now extinct. To “stand out” politically, legislators now will have to explore and take different paths. At the same time, the government no longer needs to be cowardly in governance, make excessive concessions, resign itself to inaction for fear of its political enemies or the mercurial “pro-establishment” elements in the legislature, or even strenuously please them.
During the drafting of the Basic Law, members of the Basic Law Drafting Committee made a principled assumption on the “ideal” or “proper” relationship between the executive and the legislature in the HKSAR under “patriots governing Hong Kong”, namely, “the executive and the legislature not only cooperating but also checking and balancing each other while prioritizing cooperation.” Before the realization of “patriots governing Hong Kong”, this vision can never become a reality. Today and in the future, this principled assumption can be broken down into several concrete requirements for the appropriate relationship between the executive and the legislature in Hong Kong.
First, under “patriots governing Hong Kong” and the new electoral system, the central government and Hong Kong residents will no longer regard the executive and legislative bodies as two politically opposed organs, but instead, regard them as two organs jointly responsible for the good governance of Hong Kong. In other words, in their eyes, both the executive and the legislature must jointly take responsibility for the success or failure of the running of Hong Kong. They should not blame each other, shirk responsibility, or attack each other for the failure of governance. Instead, they should work together to contribute to the country and HKSAR. Since it is a relationship of shared honor and disgrace, the executive and the Legislative Council should help and encourage each other to succeed and progress. Only with good governance can the executive and the legislature win the trust and support of the central government and Hong Kong residents.
Second, since each has the responsibility to govern Hong Kong, both the executive and the legislature have the responsibility to put forward opinions and recommendations on Hong Kong’s development, institutional reform, and policy innovation. Of course, under the constitutional format of “executive-led government”, the executive is much more proactive and capable in these areas than the Legislative Council, but the legislators from different sectors and strata can also rely on their knowledge, expertise, vision, experience and contacts with their constituents or the wider society to come up with good ideas on governance and policy.
Third, as far as individual Legislative Council members are concerned, it is not easy to gain distinction in politics as one of 90 legislators. Since they cannot gain popularity or supporters through violent or unconventional behavior, they must seek “breakthroughs” in an environment of political stability and good executive-legislative relations. To “stand out”, the legislators have to rely on their charisma, political skill, extensive knowledge, unique views, extraordinary courage, superb intelligence, ability to connect and mobilize the masses, the trust they have of particular social sectors in themselves, their status and reputation in society, and their ability to make constructive criticism and suggestions. In these respects, legislators with partisan backgrounds naturally enjoy certain advantages, but at the same time, they are constrained and occasionally dragged down by their organizational affiliations. Other legislators can still find their role and niche through their endowments, professional knowledge and extensive connections with various social sectors, especially the experts, scholars, officials, media and civil society.
Fourth, previously, the officials of the executive were willing to let the legislators be privy to the content of public policies only in the later stages of policy formulation. One of the reasons is, of course, their distrust of the opposition legislators and the unreliable “pro-establishment” lawmakers. There is an understandable concern among officials that the leakage of classified information could lead to adverse public reactions to public policies still in the embryonic state. At present, under “patriots governing Hong Kong”, the executive should have more trust and respect for the legislators and allow or even encourage them to play a more active and constructive role in the early stages of policy formulation. This would help build and promote mutual trust.
Fifth, some Legislative Council members in the past were not enthusiastic about committee and bill review work that did not command much media and public attention. This is not conducive to improving the quality of the legislation and enhancing the function of the legislature in government oversight. Under “patriots governing Hong Kong”, the central government and the patriotic elites need to pay more attention to the performance of legislators beyond the “limelight” and encourage them to actively participate in the “dull” and “inconspicuous” parts of the legislative review process. This will make for better governance overall.
Sixth, the executive and the legislature are undeniably two independent political institutions with different functions. Therefore, they must also do their own “unique” work — the administrative work of the executive and the supervision and check-and-balance work of the legislature — competently and conscientiously. No matter how cordial the executive-legislative relationship is, there is bound to be competition between them, especially in terms of earning the trust of the central government and Hong Kong residents. Following the prescriptions of seeking truth from facts, rationalism and pragmatism, mutual assistance and respect, serving the community faithfully, and maintaining political peace, the legislators should have the courage to criticize and hold the executive accountable. Concomitantly, the executive should adopt an attitude of humility and gratitude toward the criticisms and suggestions from the legislators, but should also be prepared to refute unreasonable and unfounded criticisms and suggestions in a measured way.
Finally, even though there is fierce competition between the parties and members of the Legislative Council, such as for reputation, popular support, and reelection, under “patriots governing Hong Kong”, the central government and Hong Kong residents still hope that they conduct themselves honorably and courteously. By doing so, they can maintain mutual respect and support and avoid giving the public the undesirable impression of disunity and infighting among patriotic forces. This would also even prevent internal and external hostile forces from taking the opportunity to slander patriotic forces and create further contradictions and divisions among the legislators.
In short, the executive-legislative relationship under “patriots governing Hong Kong” is still in the incipient stage of institutionalization and standardization, and its concrete content will still be shaped by the ever-changing political situation inside and outside Hong Kong. However, the benign interaction and mutual checks and balances between the executive and the legislation will definitely make Hong Kong more capable of coping with the many severe challenges in the future, especially considering the volatile and dangerous international milieu wherein the city finds itself.
The author is a professor emeritus of sociology, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and vice-president of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.