Hong Kong's efforts to achieve universal suffrage for the 2017 Chief Executive (CE) election have now reached a crucial juncture. Whether to support or veto the SAR government's electoral reform package is a key question facing all members of the Legislative Council (LegCo). This will ultimately decide the fate of universal suffrage in Hong Kong. Approving the proposals for constitutional reform would ensure Hong Kong's democratic development. Blocking it could mean universal suffrage being delayed for many years. This would also mean Hong Kong's constitutional development would grind to a halt.

At this point, it is necessary for us to review the changing process of CE elections in Hong Kong since the handover. The first CE was returned by an Election Committee of only 400 members, all of whom were appointed by the central government. This arrangement was made to overcome obstacles created by Hong Kong's last governor, Chris Patten who launched "democratic reforms" in violation of Sino-British agreement. The formation of the Election Committee was also delayed because of him. Following Annex I of the Basic Law, the second term of the first CE was approved in 2002 by the same Election Committee, which had by that time doubled in size.

The Basic Law only prescribed the method for selecting the first two terms of the CE. It stipulated that universal suffrage may eventually be implemented after 2007 in a gradual, orderly fashion. Back in 2002, the 800-member Election Committee returned the CE for only one term. It was necessary for the committee to expand its membership in accordance with these principles. Opposition lawmakers, however, demanded the implementation of universal suffrage in 2007 and vetoed the SAR government's proposals for reform in 2005. For the first time Hong Kong's democratic development was stalled because of the irresponsible conduct of opposition lawmakers.

In December 2007, the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) unanimously passed a decision relating to the method for selecting the CE by an election committee and the formation of the 2012 LegCo. This stipulated that after the election of the CE by universal suffrage was accomplished in 2017, LegCo members could be returned through direct elections as early as 2020. The order in which universal suffrage were to be implemented was unmistakable. The "pan-democrats" again opposed the decision. They demanded that universal suffrage be implemented in both the CE and LegCo elections of 2012. Their confrontational behavior divided society and sparked heated debate among parties as well as the public. To safeguard Hong Kong's prosperity and stability, the central government made amendments regarding the 2010 constitutional reform package. This was so it could eventually be approved by LegCo and the Election Committee could be expanded to 1,200 members.

The central government has always been committed to supporting Hong Kong's constitutional development to full democracy. Clearly, troublemakers in the opposition camp have been trying to block democratic progress. They have managed to match what Chris Patten did (in violation of an agreement between China and the Britain) with their own unconstitutional demands. These were aimed at rendering the Basic Law irrelevant. They also delayed the constitutional reform plans introduced by the SAR government. The 2017 CE election by universal suffrage will be a remarkable breakthrough in Hong Kong's democratic development. The "pan-democrats", instead of supporting the reform proposals, have used any means they can to block the reform package. The adversarial and non-cooperative stance of the opposition clearly shows their hostility toward the central government and the Basic Law.

Once the reform package has been approved, the election by "one person, one vote" will finally be achieved in Hong Kong - only 20 years after the handover. Hong Kong will be able to achieve a high degree of democracy much sooner than Western countries did (some took more than 100 or even 200 years to achieve universal suffrage). Had it not been for continuous opposition disruption, universal suffrage could have been realized five years earlier. If opposition lawmakers veto the reform package as they have threatened, the public's wish for the implementation of universal suffrage will be delayed for at least another five years - or longer.

Some argue that the "pan-democrats" choose to veto the reform package because of their idealized views on democracy. These have been too influenced by Western countries - particularly the United States. But let's have a closer look at presidential elections in the US.

The US selects its president through the Electoral College system. Voters cast their ballots to inform the "electorates" which presidential candidate they support and the "electorates" will vote accordingly to determine who wins the US presidency by simple majority. However, there are only some 600-odd members of the American "electorate" (the Electoral College) - a country with more than 300 million citizens. By comparison, the selection of Hong Kong's CE by a 1,200-member Election Committee which represents 7 million people is far more democratic.

Opposition politicians always argue they are just trying to achieve a more democratic election method in Hong Kong. But they have yet to convince people why they are still comparing Hong Kong's democratic reforms unfavorably with those of the US. The American system is clearly less democratic than ours when it comes to electing a leader.

The author is a veteran journalist based in Hong Kong.

(China Daily 05/08/2015 page10)