前終審庭大法官烈顯倫雖然身在澳洲，但一直心繫香港，非常留意香港的發展。近日有人惡意批評北京修改基本法附件一及二，是民主的倒退，故他特地撰寫了一篇文章，以正視聽。我認為這篇題為
《甚麼是民主》寫得情理俱備，很值得跟大家分享 。
於文章開首，他引述美國總統拜登在他的首個記者招待會上的發言： 「你們的子孫將來撰寫博士論文時，都會研究到底是獨裁制度還是民主制度比較成功。（Look, I predict to you, your children and grandchildren are going to be doing their doctoral thesis on the issue of who succeeded: autocracy or democracy ? ）」
作為所謂「自由世界」的領導，拜登將世界簡單地分成極權或民主制度，烈顯倫表示感到十分遺憾。因拜登將世界二元化，實在是過度簡化，缺乏想像力，完全沒有考慮人類多元的環境。
事實上，世上有很多不同的民主模式，有成功也有失敗。但若民主的精神是要獲得被管治者的信任，中國毫無疑問是成功的。他認為，民主並非指政府的組成方法，關鍵是政府如何行使權力。
以英國為例：英國人認為他們的「西敏寺式民主」就是民主的定義，只要一個政黨贏取多數議席，政黨領袖便會自動成為首相。但其實細心一想，這種模式將會帶來荒謬的後果。以脫歐公投為例：相信大家都同意，脫歐問題牽連甚廣，非常複雜，但英國的做法只單靠一次公投，讓巿民簡單地在選票上寫上支持或反對。而在討論期間，社會上只充斥著幾個嚴重簡單化的口號，例如「重新奪回控制權」、「團結就是力量」等，根本未能反映出脫歐的根本問題。結果，51.9％的選民支持脫歐，48.1％選擇留歐，還有200萬人要求重新公投。烈顯倫質疑，這種非黑即白的投票方式，是否解決問題的理想方法呢？答案自然不是。
至於美國選舉又如何呢？各候選人同樣依靠一些空泛、抽像、簡化的口號，去爭取選民支持。例如特朗普於2016年總統選舉時，口號是「Make American Great Again」，但其實到底是甚麼意思？到2020年選舉，口號變成「Stop the Steal」，又所指為何呢？
我們的世界充斥著過度簡化的標籤，例如非黃即藍、非泛民就是親中，這又是否恰當？
接著，他批評香港一名資深新聞工作者Stephen Vines。其實我也認識這位記者，他多次要求約我訪問，但我都拒絕了。因為我覺得他太過偏見。烈顯倫引述這名記者的說話：「中國違反了中英聯合聲明，因為中國曾承諾會用獨裁以外的方式管治香港。」
問題是，到底何謂獨裁政府？還是在他充滿偏見的思想中，早已為中國政府扣上獨裁的帽子？若中國是獨裁政府，為什麼會同意讓特區享受各種自由和權利，甚至答應將政治及公民權利，以及部分國際人權公約，都在香港適用呢？
他對Stephen Vines的第二點批評，是他錯誤地套用了英國外相藍韜文的說法，指「中英聯合聲明引進了一國兩制」。這完全是荒謬的，因為一國兩制並非中英兩國談判的結果，而是中央政府的基本政策。在談判開始之前，鄧小平先生已經提出一國兩制，將之視為管治香港的方針，可見Stephen Vines連基本的事實也弄錯了。
由此至終，一國兩制的安排都是重視國家的多樣性，國家願意在社會主義制度之下，容納一個自由及開放的城市。在一國之下，保有不同意見，按不同地方的實際情況，採取合適的管治方針，這才是最崇高的管治模式，讓人類社會得以百花齊放。
烈顯倫又引述一位很出色的澳洲評論員Henry Ergas的說法：人類文明依賴兩大支柱：第一，是人類的多樣性；第二，是人類的共通性。一方面讓不同的種族維持自己的特色，又同時活在一個大家庭之下。所以，在一國兩制之下，香港一方面維持自由的生活方式，又同時尊重國家統一，當中並沒有矛盾。
三月廿九日，人大常委修改了基本法的附件一及二，大幅度修改香港的選舉制度，其實最主要目的是確保香港的立法制度不會崩潰。然而，卻引來英國外相藍韜文的譴責，他表示：「北京最新的舉措縮窄了香港的民主辯論，違背了中國的諾言，削弱了國際社會對中國履行義務的信心。（This is the latest step by Beijing to hollow out the space for democratic debate in Hong Kong, contrary to the promises made by China itself ……This can only further undermine confidence and trust in China living up to its international responsibilities and legal obligations as a leading member of the international community.）」
他亦留意到，美國國務卿布林肯表示：「當民主脆弱的時候，國家將會受制於來自國內及國外的極端運動，以及外國的干預。」近月來，我們看到美國的民主制度是多麼脆弱，很多民主制度在特朗普任內被破壞，甚至有人質疑美國的民主制度是否能存活下去，會否變成上世紀三十年代的德國，因民主制度的脆弱，結果被獨裁者奪權呢？
根據布林肯的邏輯，若他回想自己的說話，他會發現自己根本沒資格批評中國。中國對基本法的修訂，是為了強化香港的議會，以及有香港特色的民主制度。當然，最後是否成功，目前言之尚早。但若兩國之間互相尊重，便不應該肆意批評，因為每個國家的所謂民主制度都有其弱點，沒有一個民主制度是十全十美的。
最後，他引述十九世紀蘇格蘭哲學家Thomas Carlyle的一句話作總結：「For forms of government let fools contest; Whatever governs best is best. （比較不同的政治模式是愚蠢的爭論，管理得最好的便是最好了。）」
以下是烈顯倫的英文原文：
“WHAT IS DEMOCRACY ?”
President Biden, at his first press conference, said this:
“Look, I predict to you, your children and grandchildren are going to be doing their doctoral thesis on the issue of who succeeded: autocracy or democracy ? Because that is what is at stake, not just with China”.
Coming from the “leader of the free world” that is worrying. Humanity is not made up in that binary way: one or zero, black or white, autocracy or democracy. His statement represents a reductionist view of the world; it denies the grandeur of the human condition, with all its diversity and boundless imagination.
There are many models of democracy in the world; some are more successful than others. If democracy is to be defined as a community where government exercises power with the consent of the governed, then China is very much a democracy. An overwhelming majority of people in the Mainland today supports the government under the leadership of the Communist Party.
A “democracy” is not made up simply of a government model. Partly it is a question of how power is exercised.
Some say that the “Westminster model” defines democracy: a system where the leader of the party winning the most seats at an election is appointed Prime Minister and forms the government; and the government, with the slimmest of majority, can then dictate the policies for the ensuing years.
It can yield grotesque results.
In Britain, some years ago, “Brexit” was an existential issue: whether to remain in the European Union, or to exit. The government put that to a popular vote, in the form of a referendum: yes or no. There was no room for compromise. In the course of the campaigning, the people were not told the implications of the decision either way: the leaders themselves had no idea. The complexity of the issue was reduced to a few slogans: “Regain Control”, “ Strength in Unity” etc. And the result ? 51.9 % voted for exit and the government acted in accordance with that “mandate”, over the objections of 48.1 % who wanted Britain to remain in the European Union. Over 2 million people then signed a petition for a second referendum, to no avail.
At a personal level, no one would ever make an important decision in that way; nor at the corporate level for that matter. One would make inquiries, conduct “due diligence”, find out its cost, its implications, its long-term effect.
But when it comes to a collective decision in a national democratic setting, the process is reduced to sound bytes and slogans.
“Make America Great Again”. What does that mean ? Yet it motivated millions to vote for Donald Trump as President of the USA.
“Stop the Steal”, and it sent hundreds to smash their way into that sacred sanctum of Western democracy, the US Congress on Capitol Hill.
We live in an age when a person is defined by his or her label or “identity”. You are either “yellow” or “blue”, “pro-democrat” or “pro-Beijing”. You can’t be both.
Stephen Vines is a veteran Hong Kong journalist and has many admirers. But he is out of focus when, in a recent interview with Hong Kong Free Press, he said in relation to the Sino-British Joint Declaration:
“China was promising something that no dictatorship has ever promised in history: that part of its territory will be governed in a way that was significantly different from a dictatorship”.
The word “dictatorship” carries heavy implications. There are many places on earth that fit that term. But is China one of them ?
What “dictatorship” in the world would have promulgated a constitution for a region within its own territory that guaranteed the exercise of fundamental human rights( including press freedom and the freedom of privacy and communication ) and all the rights and freedoms set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ? These are all provided for in Chapter III of the Basic Law for Hong Kong.
Stephen Vines is also wrong when he said that the Joint Declaration “introduced the One Country Two Systems framework”. This is an echo of the warped perspective of the British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab.
The One Country Two Systems framework was not the product of negotiation between the two sovereign powers. It was a fundamental policy of the Central Government, made public long before the negotiations between the two parties began, together with the equally fundamental policy of national integrity. These matters were not negotiable. Anyone with the least sense of history would have seen this.
What is clear beyond doubt is that, from the outset, Beijing valued regional diversity within its overall socialist system, under the leadership of the Communist Party. It is a world view much wider than that of Dominic Raab or, for that matter, that of President Joe Biden. It is founded on the proposition that unity can coexist with diversity. It can even be said to be the highest form of human governance.
Nature itself is expressed in this way. Biodiversity is the very essence of life on earth. At the deepest level, all life on earth is one. On the surface, there is a huge contrast between a human being and a fruit-fly: yet we share something like 40% of our DNA.
A brilliant Australian commentator, Henry Ergas, recently said this:
“Our culture has always rested on twin pillars: the ineradicable fact of human diversity, and the equally ineradicable fact of human commonality, which binds diversity into what used to be referred to as the family of man”.
There is nothing contradictory in Hong Kong enjoying a free and liberal life-style and, at the same time, honouring national integrity under a democratic model devised by Beijing, considered suitable to its circumstances.
On 29 March 2021 the Standing Committee of the NPC published amendments to Annexes I and II of the Basic Law, introducing sweeping changes to Hong Kong’s electoral system. These were to ensure that, never again, would Hong Kong suffer breakdown of its legislative process as happened in the last few years.
These reforms immediately provoked the following response from Dominic Raab, the British foreign Secretary:
“This is the latest step by Beijing to hollow out the space for democratic debate in Hong Kong, contrary to the promises made by China itself ……This can only further undermine confidence and trust in China living up to its international responsibilities and legal obligations as a leading member of the international community”.
Doubtless there will be similar fulminations from other Western leaders. It might be salutary to recall what the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on March 4th :
“When democracies are weak …. they become more vulnerable to extremist movements from the inside and to interference from the outside”.
People around the world are now witnessing the fragility of American democracy. So many democratic institutions have been destroyed or weakened during the four years of Trump’s presidency. Some are wondering if, in the long run, democracy in America can survive; whether autocracy would have the upper hand in restoring harmony to that fractured community, as happened in Germany in the mid-1930s.
If the US Secretary of State should follow his own logic, he would realize that he is in no position to criticize China for the recent reforms to Hong Kong’s electoral system.
They are clearly aimed at strengthening Hong Kong’s legislature in the long run. In that sense, it is a step in defence of “democracy” or “democracy with Hong Kong characteristics”. That aim might or might not succeed. Only time could tell. But the effort should not be decried.
A respectful attitude between nations prohibits mutual criticism, as every nation has vulnerability in its so-called democratic model. There is no perfect template for “democracy”.
Perhaps the last word should be left to the 19th century Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle:
“For forms of government let fools contest;
Whatever governs best is best. “
