Trial Time
In recent days, there have been millions of people on the streets in Hong Kong to oppose the extradition method.This leads to a major question: how do we interpret this large -scale fighting activity?Can we re -understand the relationship between Hong Kong and the mainland from changing the flow of the soil?Can we understand the changes in Hong Kong more than 20 years after the return of the soil, and grasp the future development trend of Hong Kong?Is it feasible to change the soil in Hong Kong?
Of course, the official mainstream theory is one country, two systems, and the theories held by Hong Kong democrats and its radical students are free and democracy. Hong Kong teaching and research usually uses the theoretical concepts and categories of mainstream Western mainstream.Many Hong Kong scholars do not understand that young people in Hong Kong do not understand the meaning of the word to return to the country.It is conceivable that in this case, the re -explanation of the return to the soil will be criticized from all aspects.
Some of these criticisms must have a certain reason, but this does not prevent us from adopting a new perspective and re -explaining the traditional category to further enhance our mutual understanding of the dilemma of Hong Kong issues.This mutual understanding is currently critical, and it is one of the key conditions for political compromises.One more mutual understanding of the mainland and Hong Kong, and the two sides move forward to political compromises.
The perspective of changing the soil
The change of soil returning to the history of Chinese political civilization has occupied a key position.The history of the development of Chinese civilization is a history of expanding through the core circle of the soil to the core circle, a history of the expansion of concentric circles.The return to the soil is the toast system that replaces the blood inheritance with the civil official system appointed by the central government.
For more than 20 years, the integration model of this Chinese culture has really affected the current situation of mainland and Hong Kong.The change of soil to the background culture of one country and two systems, a political and cultural gene.We can observe the various characteristics of the return to the soil in Hong Kong society, and they have an important impact on the development of Hong Kong.
If we grasp the substantive meaning of changing the soil, that is, the integration and integration of the national political, economic culture of the unified national, and culture, we will find that there are many new soil -changing outflow mechanisms in contemporary Hong Kong: China ’s garrison in Hong Kong ensures that it is guaranteedThe military foundation of returning; the five interpretations of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Congress on the Hong Kong Basic Law to ensure that the diversification of the legal system is one element; the rise of the Chinese economy, especially the recent construction of the Guangdong -Hong Kong -Macao Greater Bay Area, has made Hong Kong and the Mainland economy.In one -to -social level; at the social level, mainland China controls 150 people entering Hong Kong every day. For more than 20 years, the number of immigrants in the mainland can reach 1 million.Mainland immigrants further accelerate the so -called mainlandization; the Communist Party of China has developed party members to make it a factor in Hong Kong's political and cultural system, and play a key role in political integration.
From the perspective of changing the soil, we can understand the resistance and opposition of the mainland to direct elections.Direct selection is simply not in the category of traditional renovation.China's implementation of patriotic education and Mandarin can be regarded as the inherent requirement of changing the soil.The return to soil has always emphasized the integration of political economy and culture.Those who believe in changing the soil return to the current are always skeptical of democratic and autonomy, and believe that the new version of the soil returns can accelerate the integration process.
The resistance of the local movement to the return of the soil
In 2015, the 79 -day Occupation Movement announced that it was over. The leaders of the SAR did not use the bleeding method in 1989 to terminate the Zhanzhong Movement.However, the election on September 4, 2016 brought a miracle: six young people with no political experience, such as Luo Guancong and Zhu Kaidi, were selected as legislators.When Hong Kong returned for 20 years, many students from major universities in Hong Kong posted slogans required independence.
The younger generation who grew up after the return of the motherland in Hong Kong, but demanded the independence of Hong Kong.This independent requirement is the greatest irony to return to 20 years.The political identity of many young people in Hong Kong does not agree with the mainland's political system with the return of sovereignty.On the contrary, some Hong Kong people believe that Hong Kong's colonial history and their political system have formed a unique political civilization, and even a unique ethnic or ethnic group.More than 20 years of changing the soil return and this kind of Hong Kong's unique political civilization have profound opposition and conflict.
When Hong Kong people could not see the hope of the chief of the Election Special Economic Zone, and faced the deepening of the soil, especially in mainland China, many people were disappointed and frustrated.Some young people call out the slogan of Hong Kong independence, which is a collective rebellious mentality, and even has naive political romanticism without success or failure.It can also be understood as a kind of resistance and resistance to the return of China's return to soil in the past 20 years.
Behind Hong Kong independence is a strong desire for Hong Kong people to require independent autonomy: no sovereign state, but against the mainlandization of Hong Kong, it is required to retain Hong Kong's culture and lifestyle.In June 2019, the great parade from the amendment of the extradition law was a deep manifestation of the Hong Kong local movement: defending the autonomy of Hong Kong law, and did not want Hong Kong to become a city in the Mainland.
The value conflict behind the return of the soil
In the Hong Kong local movement, Hong Kong people expect that new immigrants in the mainland will be assimilated, integrate into Hong Kong society, and become a part of Hong Kong.On the contrary, the Beijing government expects that Hong Kong can completely integrate into Chinese society, become part of Chinese political civilization, and become Hong Kong people among Chinese people.These two expectations are developing in different directions in practice, causing deeper conflicts.
As a traditional unified political concept of reunion, the reunion of the soil is conflicting with the concept of modern democratic autonomy.Reform the soil to believe in China's single administrative system, and the central government appoints the local chief system. On the contrary, many Hong Kong people demand universal election and believe in the value of democratic and autonomy.This is the contradiction between the development model of the traditional Chinese political civilization and the contemporary democratic autonomy.
After the Hong Kong independence proposed, some young Hong Kong students believed that they must be independent and democracy are possible; because they could not see any democratization hope in the existing political framework of China.On the contrary, for Beijing leaders, there must be a country to talk about two systems.Therefore, under the idea of defending sovereignty, China follows a historical law: when sovereignty is threatened, China would rather sacrifice democracy and first defend the unity of sovereignty.When some Hong Kong students advocate Hong Kong independence and use freedom of speech to defend their right to express independence, they forgot the modern history of China: China will defend sovereignty unification at the expense of freedom and democracy at the expense of freedom and democracy.
Is it feasible to change the soil?
The emergence and development of Hong Kong independence has further accelerated China's pace of promoting the policy of reform.2017 is a turning point in Hong Kong's history: anti -Hong Kong independence has become the primary problem in national security, a sovereign problem higher than democracy.After more than 20 years of returning to Hong Kong, the central government has new tones and new directions: the country's unity problem and the problem of opposition to Hong Kong independence.To this end, we must further deepen the process of changing the soil.The amendment to the extradition law in 2019 is a process of further accelerating the return of the soil from the law, which has stimulated a local fighting movement that has a large -scale anti -extradition law.
The change of soil to the current provides a new perspective to understand the current dilemma of Hong Kong issues: the new soil returning mechanism and the willingness and ability of the Chinese new type of soil to change.But is it feasible under contemporary conditions?It is impossible to implement the appointment system in Hong Kong.There are no local officials in Hong Kong, and it cannot be said to become a flowing officer.So far, the Hong Kong Special Capital has been served by the natives of Hong Kong, instead of being a foreigner like the return of the soil.
The traditional change of soil relying on Confucianism and its imperial examination system.Confucianism is a spiritual force that integrates the politics, culture, economy, and communities of traditional society; the imperial examination system is the core measure of successful renovation.These conditions do not exist in contemporary.Today, Hong Kong people, including new immigrants in the mainland, believe that Hong Kong culture is a advanced culture of mixed Sino -Western and Western, and the transformation of contemporary Marxism -Leninism is unreasonable.The University of Hong Kong is generally more advantageous than mainland universities. Mainland students will choose to go to Hong Kong for further studies, not like the Ming and Qing dynasties go to Beijing to study as an official.
In addition, even if some Hong Kong students came to the mainland to study, they could not obtain government positions in the Mainland through examinations.Although Hong Kong is the hair of New ConfucianismSource, but in the past ten years, New Confucianism has developed rapidly in the mainland, but it has become increasingly miniature in Hong Kong.Even if Chen Zu is the successor of the new Confucianism, they usually use English to explain the new Confucianism.This English Confucianism cannot be the carrier and strength of cultural integration.
The biggest challenge to the new version of the return to soil is whether it can truly implement one country, two systems, and satisfy the desire of Hong Kong people to choose the Chief Executive.Under modern conditions, adhering to autonomy, giving play to the integration role of the SAR parliament, and ensuring local autonomy in constitutional design is something that China must consider in the change of soil reform school.
Rather than understanding the dilemma of Hong Kong issues as the intervention of foreign forces, it is better to use it as a test place to solve the conflict of civilized value.Maybe we cannot eliminate the conflict between the above two civilized values, but we can at least weaken this conflict by promoting mutual understanding, and to meet the needs of local democratic autonomy and centralized centralization through the design of the constitutional system.
The design of the Indian constitutional system provides us with a direction: the local government has the power to choose the head of the state, but the central government has a veto right to the local heads and has the power to revoke local councils.This is the mechanism of the central and local power balance.Perhaps, this political compromise -based power balance mechanism can greatly deepen the breadth and depth of political integration in Hong Kong and the mainland.
The author is the chief professor of international relations in the Australian University of Australia
