N※N

Hong Kong LegCo 2024: Only 22% of 90 Seats Open to Ordinary Voters

30

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. only-22-of-90-seats-open-to-ordinary-voters.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Friday, December 5th 2025 at 11:26 GMT by dw

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-05 179 x 224 / 10888 Bytes

2025-12-05 200 x 224 / 3896 Bytes

2025-12-05 239 x 211 / 10790 Bytes

2025-12-05 205 x 224 / 10576 Bytes

Why Hong Kong’s Legislative Election Is Far From Democratic

Hong Kong’s forthcoming legislative election—scheduled for November 2024—has attracted worldwide attention. While on the surface it appears to be a routine democratic exercise, the city’s political climate, electoral framework, and recent constitutional changes reveal a starkly different reality. Deutsche Welle’s in‑depth report explains why the election is, in many respects, “far from democratic” and how a cascade of reforms has systematically eroded the city’s democratic space.

1. A Quick Look at the Numbers

The Hong Kong Legislative Council (LegCo) will have 90 seats in the 2024 election. However, the proportion of seats that voters can actually influence has been sharply curtailed:

Thus, fewer than one‑quarter of the seats will be decided by ordinary voters. The rest are chosen by an Election Committee (EC) whose composition is skewed heavily in favor of pro‑Beijing interests.

2. The 2021 Electoral Overhaul

In 2021, the Chinese National People’s Congress (NPC) passed a sweeping set of amendments that reshaped Hong Kong’s electoral landscape. Key provisions include:

• Re‑definition of “patriots.” Candidates must pass a loyalty test that “proves their commitment to the People’s Republic of China.” Anyone deemed disloyal is automatically disqualified.
• Expanded Election Committee. The EC now consists of 1,200 members drawn from business, professional, and social sectors. The new system guarantees that a simple majority of the EC will be pro‑government.
• Narrowed Candidate Field. A newly created nomination committee—composed almost entirely of pro‑government appointees—must approve every candidate. The committee can reject candidates on technical grounds, making it effectively a gatekeeper.
• Reduced Direct Democracy. The proportion of directly elected seats fell from 47% (in 2016) to 22%, a clear move away from universal suffrage.

The reforms were justified by Beijing as a means of ensuring stability and protecting national security, but they have had the effect of systematically sidelining opposition voices.

3. The Shadow of the National Security Law

The National Security Law (NSL) imposed in 2020 has become a formidable tool for silencing dissent. The law criminalises acts of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces, with penalties that can reach life imprisonment. Its broad wording has led to a chilling effect on free speech, assembly, and political participation:

• Political Activism in Peril. Numerous pro‑democracy figures—including former lawmakers and protest leaders—have been arrested or forced into exile.
• Self‑Censorship. Media outlets and civil‑society groups have curbed coverage of sensitive topics, fearing legal repercussions.
• Electoral Impact. The NSL has bolstered the argument that only candidates who unequivocally pledge loyalty can run, thereby reinforcing the “patriots‑only” rule.

In the DW piece, an expert from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology notes that the NSL “acts as a legal veneer that justifies the exclusion of dissenting voices from the political arena.”

4. The Mechanics of Candidate Vetting

One of the most visible changes is the vetting process overseen by the nomination committee. While on paper the committee evaluates candidates against a set of criteria, in practice it operates as a filter that bars opposition figures:

• Opaque Standards. The criteria for “loyalty” and “patriotism” are left to the committee’s discretion, leaving no room for public scrutiny.
• Pre‑emptive Disqualifications. Candidates who have previously spoken against the NSL or advocated for universal suffrage are routinely excluded.
• Political Homogeneity. The committee is dominated by pro‑government appointees, ensuring that the slate of candidates is largely a “sham” democracy.

The DW report links to a separate feature on the nomination committee’s composition, underscoring its lack of independence and the heavy influence of Beijing.

5. International Reactions

The reforms have sparked widespread condemnation from Western governments and civil‑rights organisations:

• United States & EU Sanctions. The U.S. Treasury Department and the EU have imposed sanctions on key officials responsible for implementing the reforms.
• UK’s “Hong Kong Act.” Britain’s 2020 legislation provides a pathway for Hong Kong residents to claim refugee status if they fear persecution for their political views.
• Human‑Rights Watch. The organisation has called the reforms “a betrayal of the principles enshrined in the 1997 handover agreement.”

In the article, a senior diplomat from the European Commission is quoted as warning that “the erosion of democratic institutions in Hong Kong undermines the city’s role as a global financial hub.”

6. The Road Ahead: What 2024 Could Mean

Given the current trajectory, several scenarios are plausible:

1. Controlled Stalemate. The election may proceed with the new rules, yielding a LegCo dominated by pro‑Beijing parties, but maintaining an appearance of procedural legitimacy.
2. Escalated Dissent. The lack of genuine choice may fuel underground movements or civil disobedience, potentially leading to further crackdowns.
3. International Isolation. Continued sanctions and diplomatic pressure may deepen Hong Kong’s political isolation, impacting its economic ties.

The DW article concludes by emphasising that while the city’s economic prowess remains robust, its democratic credentials have been severely compromised. The forthcoming election, rather than a celebration of choice, is more a litmus test of Beijing’s control over Hong Kong’s political destiny.

7. Key Takeaways

• Direct Democratic Representation Is Minimized. Less than a quarter of LegCo seats will be decided by the electorate.
• Candidate Vetting Is a Tool of Suppression. The nomination committee effectively filters out opposition figures.
• The NSL Provides Legal Cover. The law justifies the exclusion of dissenting voices under the guise of national security.
• International Condemnation Is Growing. Western governments are increasingly critical and punitive toward Hong Kong’s democratic regression.
• Future Uncertain. The city’s political future hinges on how these mechanisms play out in the 2024 election and beyond.

By tracing the reforms, the legal backdrop, and the broader geopolitical context, Deutsche Welle’s report delivers a comprehensive picture of why Hong Kong’s legislative election is “far from democratic.” It offers a sobering reminder that the veneer of democratic processes can mask a systematic erosion of political freedoms.