一国两制下的香港民主
编译自英国皇家国际事务研究所网站9月16日文章
作者：亚洲项目高级咨询研究员蒂姆·萨默斯 翻译：王晓雄
北京最近作出的有关香港基本法发展的决定表明了“一国两制”的架构。在此体系下，香港作为中国的一部分保留其自有体系。香港必须作出决定，是否接受北京提出的民主发展框架。
北京最近就香港基本法的发展所做出的声明引发了激烈反应，无论是在香港还是在国际社会。全国人大做出的这一决定阐释了香港下一届行政长官到2017年实行普选的框架安排。
香港特区政府称此举是“将前所未有程度的民主引入香港行政长官选举的历史性机遇”。但香港许多人对此心存怀疑，他们强调，该决定要求候选人必须获得提名委员会全体委员半数以上的支持，该提名委员会共有1200名委员，多由亲当权派人士组成。这便使得反对北京的候选人难以出现在选票上。
现在该轮到香港行动了。下一步将由香港特区政府收集符合全国人大框架安排的具体推选建议。待2015年初香港立法会全体议员三分之二多数通过后才能实施。如果没有获得通过，将继续适用2012年的产生办法，由1200名委员组成的提名委员会投票选出行政长官候选人，并提交北京进行正式任命，无需经过普选。
如果香港立法会能够达成一致意见，普选将为香港政治引入新的因素。现在很难预测香港政治将发生何种改变，但让香港500万选民拥有决定权应该会让政治变得更加民主。全国人大并没有阐释过多的细节，包括提名过程如何进行等，因此，下一阶段具体推选建议的产生将会提供更多的谈判空间，以使选举过程的公平最大化。
香港立法会27名泛民议员面临着最大的两难局面。在北京宣布此决定之前和之后，大多数泛民议员表示，他们将会否决任何不能提供真正意义普选的提议。有评论人士因此而认为，游戏已经结束了，三分之二多数意味着立法会70名议员中须有47人赞成。然而，6个月的时间在政治活动中不算短，香港许多人仍在就此问题进行辩论。令主要商业区陷入停滞威胁的“占中运动”的支持程度依然不甚清晰。
是什么促使北京出台了这一政策决定？
全国人大的决定是基于2007年所作的决定而作出的。当时的决定第一次提出，香港特区政府行政长官到2017年可由普选产生。前后两个决定都遵守了1990年的基本法条款规定。香港基本法规定，最终达至由一个有广泛代表性的提名委员会按民主程序提名后普选产生的目标。
更为根本的是，这些决定均反映了邓小平在上世纪80年代设计的“一国两制”框架。主权回归中国后，香港可以保留其自有体系。
正如1984年《中英联合声明》所述，最近在2014年6月发布的白皮书中也多次重复，“一国”意味着香港直接向北京中央政府报告，重要体现之一便是由中央政府任命行政长官，尽管依照联合声明和基本法，这须基于香港举行的选举或磋商。为此，中央政府强烈希望避免出现这样一种局面，即不愿意任命一名选举出的行政长官。这是全国人大所作最新决定中提出的提名过程的背后因素。
可以推测，这也是全国人大重申行政长官必须由爱港爱国人士担任的原因。这在某种程度上有些模棱两可，但我们可以回忆起邓小平在1984年6月谈及香港时对爱国主义的定义：“尊重自己民族，诚心诚意拥护祖国恢复行使对香港的主权，不损害香港的繁荣和稳定。”
在“两制”问题上，全国人大的最新决定其实凸显了香港和中国其他省份的本质区别。允许普选行政长官(村级以上)在中华人民共和国是前所未有过的。中国大陆的人民也没有享受过有关改变政治体系的磋商和讨论的权利。
因此，允许香港普选行政长官并不意味着北京加强控制，而是表明了“两制”的发展，全国人大决定的其他方面则反映了“一国”的现实。这与以下结论也是一致的：北京对香港的根本政策依然是在适用“一国两制”，而非强化或削弱该政策。
这是否能奏效？
政治方面的问题是，对于香港许多人来说，这似乎并不足够，尤其是泛民阵营呼吁举行符合“国际标准”的普选。但他们在此前的磋商中提出的建议远离《基本法》有关行政长官选举的条款，已经被北京直接拒绝了。
“一国两制”是基本法改革需要遵循的框架，它从来都需要各方进行妥协。这一制度是否能够继续奏效是香港所要面临的决定。未来几个月中，香港特区政府和立法会要进行讨论，并最终投票决定具体的改革建议。
Democracy in Hong Kong Under "One Country Two Systems
16 Septr 2014
Dr Tim Summers Senior Consulting Fellow, Asia Programme (based in Hong Kong)
Beijing"s recent decision on constitutional development in Hong Kong reflects the "one country two systems" formula under which Hong Kong retains its own system as part of China. Hong Kong has to decide whether or not to accept the framework for democratic development on offer.
Beijing"s recent pronouncement about constitutional development in Hong Kong has provoked strong reactions, both in Hong Kong and internationally. The decision, by the Standing Committee of China"s legislature, the National People"s Congress (NPC), outlines a framework for the possible selection of the next chief executive (head of government) by universal suffrage in 2017.
The Hong Kong government has called this an "historic" opportunity to introduce an unprecedented degree of democracy into the selection of the city"s leader by all five million registered voters. Many in Hong Kong are unconvinced, highlighting the requirement for candidates to be nominated by at least half of a mainly pro-establishment "nominating committee" of 1,200 mrs. This makes it unlikely candidates opposed to Beijing will appear on the ballot.
The ball is now in Hong Kong"s court. The next steps are for the Hong Kong government to put together detailed proposals for a process in line with the NPC framework. Two-thirds of mrs of the legislative council need to approve the proposals in a vote in early 2015. If not, then the process will revert to that of 2012, with the 1,200-strong committee itself voting on who will be put forward to Beijing for formal appointment as chief executive, without any popular vote.
If a deal can be reached, a universal vote will by definition introduce new elements into Hong Kong politics. Exactly how politics will change is difficult to predict, but five million voters having the final say should make politics more democratic. There are also many details not spelt out by the NPC, including how the nomination process will work, so the next stage of producing detailed proposals may also offer some space for negotiation to maximize the fairness of the selection process.
The 27 "pan-democrat" legislators face the biggest dilemma. Both before and since Beijing announced its decision, most have said they will veto any proposal which does not provide "genuine" universal suffrage. Some commentators have therefore suggested that the game is already over – a two-thirds majority requires support from 47 of the 70 legislators. However, six months is a long time in politics and many people in Hong Kong are still debating the issues. The level of support for the "Occupy Central" movement, which has threatened to bring the main business district to a standstill, is also unclear.
What is driving Beijing"s policy?
The NPC decision was based on an earlier decision from 2007, which was the first to state that Hong Kong"s leader could be elected by universal suffrage in 2017. Both decisions follow the terms of the 1990 Basic Law, Hong Kong"s mini-constitution, which sets out the requirement for a "broadly-representative nominating committee".
More fundamentally, these decisions reflect the "one country two systems" formula, devised in the 1980s by then mount leader Deng Xiaoping to encapsulate Hong Kong retaining its sete system while returning to Chinese sovereignty.
As set out in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and repeated most recently in Beijings controversial White Paper of June 2014, "one country" means, amongst other things, that Hong Kong reports directly to the central (national) government in Beijing. An important manifestation of this is that the central government appoints the Chief Executive, though in accordance with both the Joint Declaration and Basic Law this is to be on the basis of "elections or consultations" held in Hong Kong (not Beijing). As a result, there is a strong desire on the part of the central government to avoid a scenario where it would not be willing to appoint the individual thus selected. This is what lies behind the nomination process set out in the latest NPC decision.
It is presumably also the reason why the NPC reaffirmed that the successful candidate must "love China and love Hong Kong". This is somewhat ambiguous, but it is worth recalling Deng Xiaoping"s definition of patriotism when talking about Hong Kong in June 1984: "respect for the Chinese nation, sincere support for the motherland"s resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong, and a desire not to impair Hong Kong"s prosperity and stability".
On "two systems", the latest decision actually highlights substantial differences between Hong Kong and the rest of China. Allowing a popular vote for an executive position (above village level) is unprecedented in the People"s Republic. Nor do people in mainland China enjoy the sort of consultation on and debate about possible change in their political system that has been taking place in Hong Kong.
Agreeing to allow a popular vote in Hong Kong for the chief executive therefore does not imply a tightening of Beijing"s grip, but rather manifests the development of the second system, whilst other elements of the framework set out by the NPC reflect the reality of "one country". This is consistent with a conclusion that Beijing"s fundamental policy towards Hong Kong remains the continued application of "one country two systems", rather than a tightening (or loosening) of policy.
Can it work?
The political problem is that this does not appear to be enough for many in Hong Kong. The pan-democrat camp in particular has called for universal suffrage in accordance with "international standards". But proposals which they put forward in earlier consultations that departed from the provisions of the relevant Basic Law article on selecting the chief executive have been summarily rejected by Beijing.
"One country two systems" is the framework for the constitutional reform on offer. It has always required compromise. Whether it can continue to work is the decision facing Hong Kong, as the government and legislature debate and eventually vote on detailed constitutional reform proposals over the coming months.
我来说两句排行榜