There was a very large march/demonstration in Hong Kong yesterday, calling for political reforms that would allow for more direct elections of the city's political leadership (at present there is a byzantine system of indirect and direct polls for the Legislative Council; and the Chief Executive is appointed by a committee created by Beijing). EastSouthWestNorth blog has a survey of estimates for the crowd size, which range from 60,000 to 250,000. The wide variation is just another reminder of how politicized all such estimations are.
But I am less interested in numbers, and more interested in meaning.
We often hear that democracy is fragile in Chinese cultural contexts because of the lack of deep historical experience with electoral rotation of political leadership. Apologists for authoritarianism in Beijing and Hong Kong and Singapore will argue that not only is democracy culturally alien, but it is simply not necessary or wanted by Chinese people (Taiwan, of course, is the uncomfortable exception to this rule - if we consider people there still "Chinese"...).
Reformers, on the other hand, might point to Mencius, and his admonition to political leaders to keep the people's best interest at heart when ruling, as providing an indigenous starting place for a democratic tradition. I am sympathetic to this claim.
It is historically true that China was ruled in an authoritarian manner and there was never a moment like Athenian democracy, however fleeting that moment was in Greece. The Chinese experience has more to do with the durability of Legalist practices, than with fidelity to Confucian or Mencian principles. But, whatever the hard realities might be, Mencius can be understood as a precursor to democracy.
If, as Mencius says, rulers must know and act upon what is best for the population at large, then, we might ask, how is a ruler to apprehend popular interests? Some might be obvious (and can be derived from Mencuis's text): peace, relative economic equality (with an understanding that certain economic differences are inevitable), fair administration of justice. But beyond these general principles, how can the ruler come to know what the people might want in more particular ways?
Elections were really not a part of his world, so Mencius does not mention them. But would he reject elections as a means of gauging popular sentiment? I think not. A Mencian democracy, then, might begin by binding rulers (who may initially be selected without direct elections) to regularly held referenda on key issues of the day. And if the people expressed their will and said they wanted direct elections of their leaders, then that would be binding on rulers.
Hong Kong is at a point in its history where, I would bet, a majority of people would vote for direct elections. It certainly has a socio-economic milieu conducive for successful democracy. And if that is what the people want, Mencius would say, give it to them.
Comments