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.Why did they continue to appoint governors until the end of British control?
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.Yeah, spreading democracy was never really on the Brit's agenda, at least where brown people were concerned.
Why didn't the British try to introduce more local democracy?
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.
Pre the handover agreement, it would have weakened British control and provided an opportunity for mainland subversion.
Post the handover agreement it would have weakened mainland control and provided an opportunity for British subversion. (i.e. pissed off Beijing)
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.
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.
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.
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.
The OP is talking about pre-handover democracy, the negotiations weren't a factor for the majority of Britain's hundred and fifty year rule. If they were so fired up about democracy for their conquests, they had a century of control before the PRC even existed.
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?