Hong Kong Democratic Party Under Pressure: Call for Greater Political Inclusiveness

Recently, in April 2025, members of Hong Kong’s Democratic Party stated that the party was under pressure from the Beijing government to dissolve, or its members might face arrest. In fact, as early as March this year, there were already reports suggesting that the Democratic Party would be dissolved. The current situation indicates that the Democratic Party does not wish to dissolve, and its members still hope to maintain the party’s presence in Hong Kong. However, the pressure from the Beijing government is mounting, and the political opposition in Hong Kong is facing an increasingly narrow space for survival.

The Democratic Party of Hong Kong has long focused on the civil rights and livelihoods of people in mainland China. Both before and after the handover of Hong Kong, the Democratic Party and other pan-democratic parties and individuals participated in the handover negotiations and the drafting of the Basic Law, fundraising efforts for the floods in 1993 and 1998 and the Wenchuan earthquake, preparations for the Beijing Olympics, commemorations of victims of the Nanjing Massacre and the defense of the Diaoyu Islands, as well as efforts to protect the rights of Chinese laborers victimized during World War II. They made tremendous contributions. These activities demonstrate that they are not anti-China or anti-Chinese forces, but rather patriotic and people-loving advocates of Greater China. The Democratic Party does not advocate for Hong Kong independence but stands on a patriotic democratic position. Yet the Beijing government remains intolerant.

Two years ago, I wrote an article commenting on how, after the suppression of the anti-extradition movement and the enactment of the National Security Law, the political opposition in Hong Kong has seen its space for survival greatly reduced, and the pro-Beijing establishment now monopolizes power. I expressed concern about this phenomenon and hoped that Beijing and the Hong Kong SAR government could show more tolerance towards the opposition and allow patriotic, peaceful, and non-violent democrats to continue to exist as an important force to safeguard human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong. Unfortunately, the situation has not improved in the past two years but has worsened. The Democratic Party is likely to be unable to escape dissolution. Nevertheless, I still want to make a sincere appeal and republish that old article in the hope that more people will understand the contributions of the traditional pan-democratic camp in Hong Kong and the importance of political pluralism in the city.

On May 8, 2023, Lianhe Zaobao published an article by Mr. Ching-Shing Tai titled “Will Hong Kong’s Pan-Democrats Still Participate in the District Elections?” introducing the plight of the pan-democratic camp in this year’s upcoming District Council elections and expressing concerns about Hong Kong’s lack of political inclusiveness.

On October 30, nominations for District Council candidates concluded. All opposition candidates, including those from the largest pan-democratic party, the Democratic Party, failed to pass the nomination process. All seats in the District Council were effectively taken by the pro-establishment camp in advance. This clearly proves that political diversity in Hong Kong has essentially been lost.

I quite agree with Mr. Tai’s viewpoints and am deeply concerned about Hong Kong’s current political environment. Therefore, I would like to briefly review the history of Hong Kong’s political evolution and offer some suggestions that I believe to be relatively fair.

Starting from 1841, Hong Kong gradually became a British colony. During the colonial period, despite the oppression and exploitation of Hong Kong and its people by the British, the territory saw considerable development and progress. In addition to its dazzling economic achievements and cultural prosperity, the political system also saw growth in areas such as the rule of law, citizen participation in politics, representative government, and freedom of the press and speech. Over more than a century, this development was full of twists and turns but overall steadily advanced. From the partially implemented and partially aborted “Young Plan” after World War II to Governor Chris Patten’s controversial rapid push for democracy in the 1990s, regardless of the motivations of the proponents, democracy in Hong Kong did see some limited development.

After the Sino-British negotiations and the handover of Hong Kong, under the framework of China’s Constitution and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR, most of the rule-of-law and democratic systems from the colonial era were retained and further developed through the joint efforts of pro-establishment and pan-democratic individuals. Hong Kong’s sustained prosperity was not solely due to pro-business policies; the rule of law, freedom, and democracy (even if limited) are the fundamental guarantees of the city’s brilliance as the Pearl of the Orient. Moreover, Hong Kong’s achievements in the rule of law and press freedom are integral parts of its prosperity and progress.

More importantly, Hong Kong’s democratic politics, civic participation, and freedom of speech and the press are essential tools and guarantees for ensuring that economic success benefits its citizens. Although post-war Hong Kong was already prosperous, corruption was rampant, and the elite reaped undue benefits while the general public suffered. The series of disturbances in the 1960s, aside from political factors, were fundamentally driven by the people’s dissatisfaction with the colonial government’s disregard for civil rights and livelihoods. The subsequent peace and harmony in Hong Kong were due to improvements in the rule of law and the growth of freedom and democracy, which provided Hongkongers with peaceful, reasonable, and effective channels to express and pursue their demands.

In the following years, especially after the handover, the freedom and democracy in Hong Kong did bring about some problems and side effects. However, these blemishes do not overshadow the overall positive impact. This is a view not only held by democrats but also long acknowledged by the Chinese central government, the SAR government, and pro-establishment figures. Moreover, with the framework of the Basic Law and specific institutional measures (such as the “functional constituencies” in Legislative Council elections), Hong Kong’s freedom and democracy have always been controllable, with no real possibility of becoming ungovernable.

The anti-extradition protests of 2019–2020 and their subsequent escalation and loss of control, including instances of violence, calls for independence, and racist speech, were indeed distressing and regrettable. I personally criticized these incidents multiple times at the time. However, considering various viewpoints, it becomes evident that these conflicts stemmed from complex causes and should not be condemned without comprehensive reflection. Even when criticizing, we should distinguish between those who supported violence or separatism and the many patriotic, peaceful pan-democrats, and treat them accordingly.

Since mid-2020, the Chinese central government, the Hong Kong government, and other powerful institutions have, through the enactment of the National Security Law and other means, not only succeeded in quelling the unrest and punishing those who supported independence or engaged in violence but also effectively eliminated the influence and presence of the pan-democratic camp in Hong Kong. This outcome was unexpected to me personally and likely to many others as well.

I feel deep sorrow and regret about this. Among the pan-democrats, indeed a small number supported independence or engaged in illegal activities. But the vast majority have for decades upheld patriotic democratic positions, loved both the country and Hong Kong, and contributed significantly to China’s development, the well-being of Hongkongers, and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. They participated in the handover negotiations, the drafting of the Basic Law, post-handover political reforms, and various livelihood policies. In events such as the Beijing Olympics, the Wenchuan earthquake, the Diaoyu Island defense, and the condemnation of Japanese war atrocities, the pan-democratic camp made notable contributions to the country, reflecting their patriotic and humanitarian fervor.

However, since 2020, these pan-democrats are either imprisoned or have left Hong Kong. Their parties and associated civic organizations have lost nearly all influence. This situation is disheartening. Even if they made some mistakes or committed offenses, they should not be treated excessively harshly. Their past contributions should be taken into account alongside any penalties.

Yet based on current observations, the central and Hong Kong governments seem unwilling to show any leniency and appear determined to completely erase the pan-democratic camp’s influence. The significant changes to the District Council election system and the sharp reduction in directly elected seats are examples of this. The 2021 Legislative Council election, which had already undergone electoral reform, saw the pan-democrats fail to advance even past the primaries. This is a harsh precedent. These developments all indicate that the SAR government no longer tolerates the presence of pan-democrats in the political arena and tacitly allows the pro-establishment camp to dominate.

This is a worrying scenario. As Mr. Tai pointed out, the lack of diverse voices has raised doubts about the government’s ability to communicate with the public and effectively govern. This is the inevitable consequence of political and public discourse becoming singular. Without dissent, a monopoly of speech emerges; without competition, efficiency suffers; without honest criticism, underlying corruption flourishes beneath a seemingly prosperous surface. While Hong Kong’s rule of law and civil service remain world-class, without a degree of freedom and democracy as oversight, the sustainability of this high standard is questionable.

Today, the central and SAR governments already have firm control over Hong Kong. Even a slight relaxation would not affect their grip. Under this premise, if the central and SAR governments can show goodwill, make space for, and tolerate moderate, centrist, and patriotic pan-democrats, that would be a noble and valuable move. Such individuals could serve as a constructive force in supervising the government and the pro-establishment camp.

After all, history is ever-changing—no person or force is unshakable forever. Showing kindness to others is also a form of self-preservation. As the saying goes, “Always leave some leeway for future encounters.” Beyond political ideologies, laws, and stances, there is also conscience, morality, and humanity. Whether pro-establishment or pan-democratic, mainlanders or Hongkongers, all Chinese people with different values and positions should uphold basic human decency. Political figures especially should understand the importance of moderation and empathy. Only then can families, interpersonal relationships, civil society, politics, and the world become more harmonious, and cities and nations enjoy long-term peace and stability. The attitudes of former Chinese leaders like Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao toward Hong Kong affairs were indeed admirable in this regard.

I hope that people from all sectors in Hong Kong and the central government can look back on the tolerance and foresight of their predecessors regarding Hong Kong. Now, with an overwhelming political advantage, they should show more inclusiveness and goodwill toward those pan-democrats and civic forces who bear no ill will, possess good character, and love both the country and Hong Kong. Let us unfreeze the currently suffocating political climate in Hong Kong with sincere and meaningful changes, for the lasting prosperity and enduring peace of Hong Kong, the mainland, and the entire Chinese nation.