One Country, Two Systems’ The root of the problem

‘One Country, Two Systems’

The root of the problem

1997 marked the year where Hong Kong adopted the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ arrangement, where the city would supposedly enjoy its pre-existing legal arrangements under a single, unified China. Whilst its implementation seemed rather straightforward, in practice, this has not been the case. Indeed, whilst the handover of Hong Kong from Britain to China was initially met with great optimism, the everfraying relationship between Hong Kong and the mainland runs the risk of fully deteriorating in the face of growing protests within the Special Administrative Region. This can be seen especially with the current 2019 protests, where, once peaceful, these demonstrations have turned violent. Such violence has paralysed Hong Kong whilst greatly exacerbating dire relations with the mainland. What has caused this rift? Whilst Beijing have been open in blaming such unrest on foreign interference and socio-economic woes, I argue that most of the blame lie with the inherent contradictions within the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ arrangement. These contradictions relate to issues of the levels of autonomy that Hong Kong truly possess and the power of the central government. Theoretically, the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ arrangement can be said to be a “policy innovation to preserve a high degree of autonomy of the Special Administrative Regions under the centralised authoritarian rule of China as a unitary state’’. Indeed, this autonomy is outlined in Hong Kong’s mini constitution (the Basic Law), which states how Hong Kong would retain its current way of life, promising full universal suffrage and the maintenance of the capitalist system. Whilst this may seem clear on paper, in reality, the arrangement has been riddled with large scale tensions which seek to break open the very bonds which keep the system together. Indeed, one can point to the ongoing attempts at the political and economic integration of Hong Kong by Beijing. These attempts, I argue, have been central in

exacerbating tensions whilst contributing towards the rise of resistance movements within Hong Kong. For instance, despite promises of a “high degree of autonomy’’, actions by the Beijing government suggest otherwise. This can be seen clearly with the attempts by the Hong Kong government to pass legislations which were deemed to encroach into Hong Kong’s autonomy. Examples include the Extradition Law amendment in 2019, which was seen as a threat to Hong Kong’s judicial independence, and the introduction of Article 23, which sought to outlaw speech, assemblies, and political activities that were perceived as a threat to Chinese national security. Here, the increasing attempts to politically integrate Hong Kong into the mainland (perhaps as a way to protect the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ arrangement and national unity) have helped to lay bare the large contradictions within the entire system itself. For instance, whilst Hong Kong theoretically has a large degree of autonomy given to them by the Basic Law, the power of interpretation of such laws resides with the standing committee of National People’s Congress (SCNPC). At the same time, the SCNPC has acted controversially in issues surrounding universal suffrage, where, through the power of interpretation, it has seemingly slowed down the progress to full democracy. This can perhaps be seen by the attempts in 2014 to establish a system to screen Chief Executive candidates before citizens are allowed to vote. This erosion of autonomy can be directly linked with the growing dependence of Hong Kong on the Chinese economy. Whilst Beijing have been swift to point out the economic benefits Hong Kong gained under the arrangement, especially through the policy of the 2003 mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA), Hong Kong has become increasingly reliant on the Chinese import and export market as well as Chinese tourists in order to sustain its economy. This, as some commentators have suggested, has essentially led to a reduction of self-autonomy which has placed the care of Hong Kong’s fiscal health and sustainability increasingly into the hands of the Chinese government. This can be seen with Hong Kong’s heavy reliance on food and water from China. For instance, 80% of Hong Kong’s water comes from Guangdong province whilst Hong Kong’s beef, 94% of fresh pork, and 92% of “The ever-fraying relationship between Hong Kong and the mainland runs the risk of fully deteriorating in the face of growing protests within the Special Administrative Region”

vegetables comes from China. This dependency can be illustrated by how in 2016, vegetable prices went up by 30% in Hong Kong due to the mainland having an unusually cold winter.

Thus, whilst the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ arrangement seemingly promises a clear delineation of responsibility between Hong Kong and the mainland, in practice, the degree of autonomy which Hong Kong has is clearly subject to the will of Beijing.

Moves towards political and economic integration/ dependency by the Chinese

government have subsequently helped to exacerbate tensions produced by the underlying hypocrisy within the governing framework around the issue of autonomy – ultimately contributing towards the rise in large scale resistance movements. This can be seen with the 2003 protests against the implementation of Article 23, the 2014 Umbrella Movement, and the current 2019 protests, which sought to reverse Chinese policies which were deemed to encroach on Hong Kong’s “independence’’, as outlined by the Basic Law. The latter of which has gone beyond the initial issue of the controversial Extradition Bill with demands such as full universal suffrage, while general oversight into police conduct are also now being sought by protestors. In conjunction with that, smaller scale protests against economic integration has also been evident in Hong Kong. For instance, there were protests in 2009 and 2010 over the plan to build a costly express rail link between Guangzhou and Hong Kong. Whilst the plan ultimately went ahead, it helped to increase awareness of the dangers of economic dependence of the economy on China. From this, it can be seen that rather than facilitating a ‘Greater China’ as hoped by the Chinese government, the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ arrangement has merely caused increasing divisions between the mainland and Hong Kong, fostering a rise of anti-China sentiment, as well as consolidating a distinctive Hong Kong identity, which has become seemingly incompatible with the values of China. This can be seen in a study by the Hong Kong University public opinion program in June 2019, where findings showed that in the past year, there has been a 14% increase in people saying they were not proud of becoming a national citizen of China (from 57% to 71%). There were also increases in the amount of people who identified as being a Hongkonger in the literal and in a ‘broad sense’. This, according to Edward Tai, reflects the impact of the marches against the extradition bill on the Hong Kong citizens, ethnic identity, and feelings towards the handover of sovereignty. “Rather than facilitating a ‘Greater China’, the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ arrangement has merely caused increasing divisions between the mainland and Hong Kong”

Here, it can be said that the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ arrangement, due to the inherent contradictions within the system, fails to be an effective mediator between the two entities in question. Indeed, this is partly down to the systemic failure to take into account issues concerning culture and identity, and differing perceptions over the concepts of democracy and autonomy. Thus, if the arrangement remains unchanged, the growth of tension between the two sides will continue to escalate, resulting in the continued occurrence of public protests against the Beijing government.

In order for such violence and protests to stop, I suggest that rather than just blaming foreign interference and socio-economic woes for the rise in unrest, the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ arrangement needs to be radically reformed to a state where both sides concerns can be fairly mediated whilst ensuring the preservation of values of both sides. However, how the way things are, such a possibility seems to be a far-flung fantasy.