Why didn't the British introduce more democracy in Hong Kong?
- Thread starter nakum
- Start date
Cook
Banned
It was a Crown Colony, even if the British had introduced a legislative assembly they would still have appointed a Governor to the colony; the exception is colonies that are transiting to independence, which Hong Kong never was and never could be.
Cook
Banned
That must be why the world’s largest democracy uses the Westminster System, bequeathed to them by the British at the end of the Raj and why the only democracies in Sub-saharan Africa were all at one stage part of the British Empire.
Because they didn't want to? Also, they were going to be handing Hong Kong back to China, not setting it free, so why build up a tradition of government which might well be contrary to Chinese intentions and desire?
The unspoken reason is because the British feared Chinese infiltration in Hong Kong during the Cold War, and activists for greater democracy were considered subversives and often received unfriendly police visits at midnight.
Flocculencio
Donor
We took it from the Raj. The British didn't give it to us. To their eternal credit they didn't keep it from us by force, but we still took it by asking politely yet firmly.
Re Hong Kong- as other have said there wasn't seen to be much of a point in promoting local institutions when it was just going to be handed back to China.
This exactly. I highly recommend the documentary series 'The Last Governor of Hong Kong', for a very extensive look at the period leading up to the handover, and the problems caused for everyone by the last governor, Chris Patten's attempts to bring some sort of elected representation to the colony.
For all the morons in the thread acting like the British Empire was some evil racist monolithic entity, read some books before you post on a history forum. The People's Republic is equally, if not more at fault for not allowing democracy into Hong Kong. We must remember that by the time of the Handover Agreement, Britain was no longer the ruler of the waves, and was in fact very much the underdog in the negotiations, despite Maggie Thatcher's hopes and dreams.
And how many of those countries had such governments both before an active transition to independence began and without White rule?
Noone's saying China is giving democracy to Hong Kong. That's not relevant here. And I'd say many people here have read up on the British Empire to form our opinions on it.
Now, on the question of Hong Kong, as people more knowledgeable than me on the subject have stated, it didn't happen because of the upcoming handover.
I never said China was giving Hong Kong democracy. My point was that Britain had no chance of bringing democracy, except in the form of Chris 'Loose Cannon' Patten, because of China's unflinching no-democracy stance in the negotiations.
Flocculencio
Donor
Who's disagreeing with you? The thread got slightly derailed because of people making comments on wider British Imperialism but everyone who's actually bothered to address Hong Kong itself has essentially said that the prospect of the handover was why it was impractical.
I'm just in a belligerent mood, and the scores of one-sentence trolly replies aren't helping
I'd say up until the 50s or so it was because of racial prejudice, 60s it was because of communism and 70s onwards it was because of its uncertain future vis-a-vis China.
If the British had attempted to introduce more democracy in the 60s around the time that decolonization was really starting to gain steam, what would have happened in Hong Kong? Could it have been successful? Would it have prevented the handover? Was there any way for Britain to avoid the handover?
The only real way for Britain to retain control of Hong Kong or grant it independence would be for the lease of the New Territories to become an outright transfer of land. As long as China can claim that it is to get the land back, there is no way that Hong Kong can stand without the New Territories.