Cheng Xianyue
Chinese Association of Hong Kong & Macao Studies
The eighth-term Legislative Council election in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has drawn to a triumphant close, showcasing a landscape of benign competition that offers a vital reference point for the design of democratic institutions. For too long, certain Western narratives have framed the global order through the rigid binary of “democracy versus authoritarianism,” yet Hong Kong’s experience underscores a profound truth: democracy’s forms should be rich and pluralistic, with its true vitality measured not by ideological purity, but by governance efficacy and social consensus.
As a cornerstone of modern political civilization, Western representative democracy once exerted sweeping influence through its competitive elections and multi-party rotations. However, in an era of deepening globalization and escalating social complexity, its inherent structural tensions have grown starkly apparent—political polarization erodes consensus-building, short-term electoral gains hijack long-term national strategies, and societies fracture further amid inflamed identity politics. This “adversarial democracy,” while safeguarding formal freedoms, risks undermining the continuity and effectiveness of governance, ensnaring itself in the “democratic paradox.” In stark contrast, Hong Kong’s revamped electoral system prioritizes broad representation, political inclusivity, balanced participation, and fair competition, transforming what could devolve into a socially divisive “zero-sum game” into a “consensus-building platform” that harnesses constructive energies. Despite the disruptive shadow of a sudden fire during preparations— which briefly chilled the public mood—the overall voter turnout still climbed higher than in the previous election, signaling that societal expectations for the legislature’s performance remain undimmed by external shocks. Citizens, through their rational engagement, have voiced a clear intent to forge developmental consensus via institutionalized channels. Candidates vied for support on the strength of policy platforms and professional expertise, while diverse sectors rallied around shared imperatives like “boosting the economy, charting development, benefiting the people, and advancing reforms,” heralding the emergence of a problem-solving political culture.
Under the “patriots administering Hong Kong” principle, this election’s architecture ensures that governing authority rests firmly in the hands of those truly committed to the city’s long-term prosperity and stability—an institutional echo of the “One Country, Two Systems” doctrine and Hong Kong’s unique status. This design places the safeguarding of national sovereignty, security, and developmental interests at its unyielding core, while fully realizing the optimal equilibrium between Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and the rights of its citizens within that very framework. In practice, optimized mechanisms have empowered business leaders, professional groups, grassroots communities, and beyond with effective participation avenues: turnout in sectors like innovation and technology, as well as the third-tier business constituency, soared to a perfect 100%, embodying the genuine realization of “balanced participation” as a bedrock of quality democracy. This illuminates a core insight: true democratic vitality lies not in street-level confrontations or political gridlock, but in forging equilibrium between ordered competition and rational deliberation, channeling social consensus through institutionalized platforms to advance developmental agendas.
Hong Kong’s latest election represents a bold foray into governance modernization, deeply rooted in its constitutional order and social realities. It may not furnish a one-size-fits-all blueprint for global democracies, yet it charts a universally resonant pathway for reflection: effective democracy must foster social unity rather than exacerbate divisions, solve real-world problems instead of spawning fresh antagonisms, and authentically adapt to—and serve—its society’s developmental stage and core needs. Far from being a mere showcase for ideological posturing, Hong Kong’s electoral framework, through its locally grounded successes, demonstrates to the world that developmental paths can be chosen with sovereignty, governance models innovated with ingenuity, and popular welfare steadily elevated amid pragmatic, orderly institutional evolution. In this light, Hong Kong’s journey from confrontation to consensus isn’t just a local milestone—it’s a beacon for reimagining democracy’s promise in our fractious times.
InsightSpeak
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Grace Zhou, a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies
The dust has settled on Hong Kong’s 8th Legislative Council election, with voter turnout rising from 30.2% in 2021 to 31.9% this time. Hong Kong society and the new electoral system are gradually working out a new way of relating to each other. Rather than fixating on the numbers, a more meaningful question now is not whether people voted, but who did, on what basis they made their decisions, and how those evolving criteria might shape executive‑legislative relations over the next term.
The most notable part this time is how voters made their judgments. An increasing number of voters are no longer voting solely on the basis of party affiliation or political camp, but first examining a candidate’s résumé, professional competence and their actual performance in local districts or sectors before casting their vote—in other words, marking a “report card” with their ballots.
The 2021 poll was the first LegCo election after the reforms, and the public were unfamiliar with the new system. Four years on, the basic framework has stabilised, and voters have understood how the new system operates. As that sense of unfamiliarity recedes, attention naturally has shifted back to the candidates themselves.
If the previous era of high-intensity politics was driven by emotion and identity‑based voting, this election looks more like a cool-headed calculation. Voters care about who, within the existing system, can actually address concrete problems such as building safety, public housing maintenance, and medical and elderly care. Instead of being satisfied simply with a few slogans, they look for those who have put forward workable proposals and followed through over time. Many candidates who are not members of the main political parties emerged by specialised expertise and community service. Clearly, within the current political structure, voters are still using their ballots to reshape the internal balance of power. Emotions have cooled, but the bar has been raised – voters will remember who asks serious questions in the chamber and who merely shows up for the photo op.
Under the principle of “patriots governing Hong Kong” , executive leadership is the prerequisite, and the executive and legislature moving “in the same direction” is seen as a guarantee of stability. Lawmakers can and should, at the strategic level, support the move from governance to greater prosperity, economic development and safeguarding national security. But voters also want to see specific policies subjected to open debate and amendment, major incidents and governance failures be reasonably examined and institutionally reviewed; and budgets and bills be judiciously examined instead of a quick pass.
If the new LegCo is to respond to this pragmatic and rational public sentiment, it needs to position itself as a cooperative overseer.
Cooperation here means upholding executive primacy while leveraging the legislature’s professional expertise and public mandate to help refine and improve government policy. In practice, this could involve task forces, district networks and industry consultations to collate public input in the policy design phase and feed it into official deliberations at an early stage. When crises emerge, lawmakers and the executive should move in tandem — supporting speedy appropriations and measures while communicating feedback to policymakers in time. On long‑term issues such as the Northern Metropolis, transport infrastructure and elderly care, there should be sustained follow‑up through cross‑sector mechanisms — rather than disbanding committees upon the completion of a project and leaving it unattended.
Oversight is not about reflexive opposition at the eleventh hour but about targeted, constructive scrutiny throughout questioning and debate. Lawmakers should press for data and impact assessments, making full use of oral and written questions, and insist on disclosure of key figures and risk evaluations. They should also put forward alternative proposals, offering clear adjustments to procedures, supporting measures and timetables, so that debate becomes an instrument of refinement rather than mere rhetoric. Previous years of stagnation on the regulation of ride-hailing in Hong Kong was largely the result of simple opposition without substantive proposals. In terms of implementation and outcomes, follow-up committees, site visits and engagement with frontline stakeholders should be adopted to examine whether policies are being distorted in practice or resources misallocated. They should also help prompt timely adjustments where needed, rather than waiting until problems erupt and then vetoing everything in one go.
Overall, if the new LegCo is to respond to this rational, pragmatic public mandate, it must be a rigorous questioner on public safety and livelihood issues, a meticulous guardian over legislation and budgets, and an honest collaborator in executive interactions.
This election shows that there is still a group of voters willing to spend time finding out who the candidates are and what they have done before making up their minds. That conscientiousness is perhaps the most valuable seed of a new electoral culture. It is now up to the new LegCo and the HKSAR Government to answer that: they must demonstrate with visible reform outcomes that the system can not only maintain stability and properly manage elections, but also solve problems and improve people’s lives; and they must convince citizens that political confrontation has cooled and the system is more trustworthy. If they can respond to these expectations, there is a genuine opportunity for the principle of “patriots governing Hong Kong” to be gradually translated into good governance that people can benefit from in their daily lives.
