Political realities
The election of Leung Chun-ying as Hong Kong's third chief executive showed that Beijing could - and should - have left the decision to the people of Hong Kong. Ultimately, the official results proved of marginal interest. Leung's poor showing, securing only 689 votes out of 1,200, was largely caused by Beijing's decision to first back his rival Henry Tang Ying-yen. The Chinese authorities shifted their endorsement to Leung only after Tang had grossly mismanaged a series of scandals that had made him unelectable.
Clearly, the formal electoral results are not manifestations of the popular will in Hong Kong. Rather, it was left to a mock election exercise run by academics at the University of Hong Kong to reveal real insight into voter perceptions and consequently provide valuable lessons that the Chinese government should heed come the next election in 2017.
More than 220,000 citizens took part in the voting exercise. Nearly 55per cent rejected all three candidates, while 17.8per cent voted for Leung, 16.3per cent for Tang and only 11.4per cent for Albert Ho Chun-yan, the pro-democracy candidate staunchly opposed by Beijing.
These results are highly significant for three reasons. First and foremost, we now know someone like Ho would not have been elected had there been a free election. The disappointing outcome for the Democratic Party leader demonstrates that voters in Hong Kong are politically realistic and astute enough to realise there is little point in voting for a candidate with whom the Chinese government will refuse to do business.
Ho secured few votes even though he was the only candidate to remain untainted by scandal. The low percentage should persuade Beijing that allowing the people of Hong Kong a free vote would not automatically mean candidates it deemed unacceptable would win office. The renowned pragmatism of the people of Hong Kong is alive and well - electoral democracy in Hong Kong would not have breached Beijing's bottom line.
Second, at 17.8per cent, Leung secured an exceptionally low approval rating in his 'election', representing the worst possible start for any new chief executive. The mock election showed that Leung is not seen as a credible chief executive by a clear majority of the local people.
Winning only 57per cent of the votes from the official Election Committee also shows that he lacks widespread support from the business community, which enjoys a disproportionately strong representation on the committee. Since credibility is essential for any chief executive to function effectively, Leung now has a mountain to climb, with next to no scope to claim that he enjoys a mandate from the people.
This is not a good result for Hong Kong or, crucially, Beijing. Both need a strong and effective chief executive who can command the confidence and support of the people of Hong Kong and the Chinese government. This is particularly important at this point in the special administrative region's development as its first two chief executives both discredited themselves in office.
Both their selection and the predicament in which Leung finds himself are the result of the method of selection imposed by Beijing. It is surely high time to reform this unsatisfactory process since it serves neither Hong Kong's nor China's interests.
Third, and not least, is the reality that had the chief executive been chosen by an open and fair direct election based on 'one person, one vote' and a simple majority, Beijing's eventual choice, Leung, would have won if the mock election were real.
Had he been chosen on such a basis, he would have been able to claim an electoral mandate, despite a low percentage of votes actually cast in his favour.
The fact that 55per cent of people who voted in the mock election rejected all three candidates sent a clear message: the existing system of 'indirect election' cannot produce a suitable candidate for the office of chief executive.
Voters are seeking someone who is politically credible - someone who will be both responsible to the people of Hong Kong and maintain a good working relationship with Beijing. Despite his credentials as a democrat, Ho could not meet the second requirement. Tang is accused of having broken the law with the illegal extension of his home. Leung is widely seen as having an authoritarian streak and insufficient respect for the rights of individuals. None of them were deemed to have met both essential criteria. If Hong Kong had been allowed to hold an open, free and fair election, public scrutiny and the political realism would most probably have screened out unsuitable candidates at an earlier stage.
The primaries that would have been organised by political parties in selecting their candidates would have reduced the risk of scandals that plagued Tang and, to a lesser extent, Leung, in the final weeks before the election. The candidates would have been required to produce realistic policy platforms.
The most important lesson policymakers in Beijing should learn as they ponder direct election of the chief executive for 2017 is that selection disguised as 'indirect election' cannot produce a more effective and credible leader for Hong Kong than direct election.
Introducing a direct election five years hence is to the advantage of both Beijing and Hong Kong.
Steve Tsang is director of the China Policy Institute and professor of Contemporary Chinese Studies at the University of Nottingham
