One Country, Two Systems

DOES IT MAKE SENSE IN A THEORETICAL WORLD DEVOID OF REALITY, OR IS THE CONCEPT ESSENTIALLY A CONTRADICTION?

Hong Kong has a hard time trusting the Chinese Communist Party, before and even after the handover from Britain to China. People are afraid of China’s notorious human rights violations record will eventually apply to Hong Kong. Fears have now come true as Beijing cements grip on Hong Kong. From the extradition law to national security law, every move by Beijing has eroded the protection given to Hong Kong citizens under the “One country two systems” ruling policy. In 1997, the colonial flag of Great Britain was lowered over Hong Kong, and the orchid flag of Hong Kong SAR was raised. Rather than using the state ensign of China, the official flag of Hong Kong has been used since 1997, symbolizing the “one country, two systems” principle behind the city’s reunification with China. The “one country, two systems” framework was proposed by the Chinese Communist Party as a solution to the complex reunification problem. Deng Xiaoping, the former leader of the People’s Republic of China conceived the idea to promise autonomy over all aspects of Hong Kong’s governance except those related to defense and foreign affairs. The model is meant to provide a rational mechanism to allow for two contradictory systems to coexist and amalgamate without interfering with each other. In this way, Hong Kong people could live the life they used to have without having dramatic change, at the same time China resuming its sovereignty over the Hong Kong territory. However, with the “one country, two systems” model now on its last legs, many have realized that the sugar-coated agreements have seemed in effect to be over. To Hong Kong protesters, the Party has failed to live up to the real spirit of “one country two systems”. Does this real spirit only seem easy to comply with within a theoretical world but not reality? Is “one country two systems” overall a feasible solution to divided regions? Theoretically, the “one country two systems” serves as an interim step towards final reunification. It requires compromise from both and reformations from time being. The model is not practicable in real life, as in the game of politics, different interests are arduous to reconcile. The model is only feasible when the two systems are in a fairer relationship in terms of political power, in which the Hong Kong government will have to be more bargainable and internationally backed. In the case of Hong Kong, there have been different self-interests and expectations that caused conflicts. It is the structural limitation of the “one country, two systems” principle. This is evidenced by Hong Kong’s developments over the past 20 years. In these 20 years time, the contradiction of One Country Two System has been going on and on. It allows Hong Kong to keep or even carry forward its inherent western-style of ruling that is nurtured by the rule of law, judicial and legislation independence and protection of human rights like free press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc, to achieve a status of Asia’s world city. Concurrently, the ideology of China’s political system persists in placing limits on achieving the liberal democracy in Hong Kong. The city shall not be surprised to see itself having to take larger political concessions off the table. However, from Peter kropotkin’s quote: “The hopeless don’t revolt, because revolution is an act of hope.” I see the protesters holding hopes and wouldn’t give up, others should only feel guilty about giving up on their homes instead of nitpicking the fighters from a privileged point of view. In the late 50s, Hong Kong’s capitalism had continued to boom, the rapidly developed market has marked Hong Kong’s status as a top and key Asian financial hub. The rule of law and independence of the judiciary under the “One country, two systems” model was vital to Hong Kong’s success. Beijing too has been aware of the benefits brought by the capitalist and liberal Hong Kong for a long time. Before China rose to become a global superpower, the Party had trod carefully in the commercial arena for fear of damaging Hong Kong’s reputation as an open place to do business when trying to grasp strong control over Hong Kong. However, with an opendoor policy on boosting the Chinese economy, China now ranks at the top of the world in terms of economic power. Back in the time around the handover, Hong Kong had contributed 27% of the Chinese economy; twenty years later, it contributed a mere 3%. The dependency of China on Hong Kong has rapidly declined.[1] Hong Kong has somehow lost its function as China’s financial gateway. Economical reason is not the only reason why, but unquestionably a recessed economy is a good timing for Beijing to tame Hong Kong to be a patriotic part of China. Beijing’s position on the “one country two systems” principle is