Electoral Systems By C. Raj Kumar City University of Hong Kong
Enhancing Democratic Participation Project 2003 Published by Civic Exchange - March 2003
Electoral Systems
2. Post-1997 Elections
Part 1: Introduction
The first post-1997 LegCo election was held in 1998. Although the number and breakdown of LegCo seats remained the same as in 1995, many of the electoral arrangements for the 1995 elections were overturned:
Reviewing existing electoral arrangements in Hong Kong is a key step in democratisation. Legislative elections offer an important channel for political participation in a society as they allow ordinary people to choose their own law-making and governing representatives. The design of the electoral system is critical because it determines the representativeness and the coherence of the elected legislature. Changes in voting systems, in the size and composition of the electorate or in other electoral arrangements can significantly affect democratic governance.
Part 2: Legislative Elections in Hong Kong 1. Pre-1997 Elections Functional constituency (FC) elections and direct elections for some seats in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo) were introduced in 1985 and 1991, respectively. Further reforms in 1995 dramatically increased the total number of voters and provided all working people with a vote in FC elections. In the 1995 elections, LegCo was for the first time made up wholly of elected members: • 20 seats were elected directly through geographical elections (GE); • 30 seats were elected through FC elections; and • 10 seats were elected by an Election Committee (EC) made up of directly elected District Board members.
• For GE, the 20 single-member constituencies were replaced by five multi-member constituencies; • For FC elections, the size of the electorate was significantly reduced, the working vote was cancelled and a less democratic system of corporate voting was introduced; and • The electorate for the EC was altered, resulting in substantial overlap with the FC electorate.
electoral rights and entitlements: Hong Kong people are still not able to choose their own government and all legislators in free and fair elections. 2. Allaying fears The Basic Law provides for the possibility of reform of the electoral system for LegCo and for the Chief Executive, which could lead to new electoral arrangements that are more democratic. However, there is still considerable concern regarding democratisation among certain groups in Hong Kong, particularly the FCs. Some of these groups see democracy as a threat to their interests and fear that democratic processes will result in disorder and inefficient management, which is bad for business.
3. Problems with the current system
3. Which electoral system?
The current electoral system produces a weak and fragmented legislature. The system was designed to facilitate the operation of an “executive-led” political system in the HKSAR.
Hong Kong people should be encouraged to discuss their opinions regarding democracy and to see it as a tool for achieving civic empowerment and political participation.
The new electoral system was created to overturn the pre-1997 electoral reforms and prevent any one political party from dominating LegCo, especially prodemocracy parties. The system also limits the overall representativeness of the FCs, which generally represent business and professional interests. The narrow categorisation of FCs excludes other groups and interests from the political process.
Part of this process is identifying the electoral system that is most suitable for Hong Kong. A modern society needs an electoral system that:
PART 3: Deepening Democracy in the HKSAR
• • • •
Ensures a representative legislature; Makes elections accessible and meaningful; Provides incentives for conciliation; Facilitates stable, efficient and accountable government; • Encourages multi-party democracy; • Promotes a legislative opposition; and • Improves political capacity.
Kong’s existing electoral and voting systems? What would be the implications of these changes? • How could LegCo be made more broadly representative? • How could Hong Kong’s “democratic deficit” be addressed?
Enhancing Democratic Participation Project 2003 This pamphlet is written and produced as a part of Civic Exchange’s Enhancing Democratic Participation Project 2003. We have invited scholars and experts to help frame some key issues relating to Hong Kong’s democratic development. These papers and pamphlets can be used to enrich community deliberation. A commissioned survey will also be carried out and results published. We encourage people to organise their own gatherings to discuss issues relating to democratic development. By way of assistance, modest funding may be available. We also link groups to professional facilitators who may be able to help them design and manage gatherings in a democratic manner. We hope this Project helps people to think about and practise democracy. Civic Exchange will record the entire process and publish a final report to share observations gained from the Project before the end of 2003. For further information call Ms. Yip Yan Yan at 2893-0213 or email yyip@civic-exchange.org
1. Hong Kong’s “democratic deficit” PART 4: Issues for Discussion The term “democratic deficit” indicates a hollow citizenship under which people do not have full
• What changes should be made to Hong
An electronic version of all the papers and pamphlets can be found at www.civic-exchange.org