Hong Kong has experienced eventful times since the Handover in 1997. With political awareness on the increase, a democratic movement gaining momentum and Beijing having ruled out universal suffrage for 2007 and 2008, many tough decisions and compromises are going to have to be made by the Central Authorities and Hong Kong SAR Government, as well as the pan-democratic camp. It is likely changes with the executive-led system will occur, whether universal suffrage for the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council could be achieved with stability in the near future remains a topic for heated debate. It is encouraging that both sides are now pushing for better communication and understanding, and an environment for real debate about the future of Hong Kong between those that matter appears imminent at long last.

Why is the Mainland so reluctant to push forward with political reform in Hong Kong? How does this compare with Beijing's attitude regarding its own reforms on the Mainland? What conditions could enable Beijing to trust the people of Hong Kong with the task of choosing their own Chief Executive and Legislature? These are some of the questions I intend to explore in this short study. To answer these questions I will first concentrate on electoral reforms on the Mainland, namely the impact and success of village elections introduced in 1987, and changes made to the selection of cadres in higher level committees. Then I will examine the basis of the Mainland's relationship with Hong Kong built upon the principle of "One Country, Two Systems\u201d and how its implementation to date bodes for the future. Finally, I will try to identify the cause of the distrust Beijing feels towards the democratic movement, and what could be done to make universal suffrage more acceptable to Beijing.

At a time when Hong Kong is pushing for universal suffrage, it may be useful to look at the progress of democratic reform in China to more accurately gauge Beijing\u2019s attitude towards constitutional reform in Hong Kong.

By the mid-1980s, China's economic reforms started under former president Deng Xiaoping began to take off in coastal and urban areas. However, following the implementation of the Household Responsibility System (HRS) a power vacuum began to emerge in rural areas.1Previously, farmers had worked for people's communes, which monopolised all resources including food, capital and commodity goods. Under that system, rural villagers worked collectively to produce agricultural products. The commune then distributed them to the peasants. Peasants were

Under the HRS, Chinese farmers regained control of the production process. In place of the communes, the authorities established people's congresses in townships. However the township administrators did not have the resources or manpower to manage the brigade and production teams at village level. Public projects depended on the farmers to provide funding from their earnings. An unfortunate effect of the economic reforms was the increase of corruption amongst local officials. Alongside increased taxes and price inflation, incomes of rural peasants stagnated and fell. In some cases officials could not pay for the grain purchased by the state and started handing out IOUs. Villagers began demanding to participate in the management of their villages in return for their funding of local administration. There were serious prospects of social unrest.

Within the Communist hierarchy emerged different opinions on the best solution to tackle the problem arising in rural areas in the 1980s. Conservatives proposed establishing government offices in the villages to bridge the gap between the farmers and the discredited township officials. A group of reformers lobbied in favour of elections for a village committee (the most grassroots level of committee). In order to avoid confrontation with the conservatives, the reformers planned to implement the reforms in two stages.The first was to persuade local officials to organise elections as quickly as possible, regardless of any irregularities in the early stages of implementation. The second stage would be to improve on the elections by increasing competitiveness and reducing manipulation. In this way the reformers hoped to lock local bureaucrats onto the elections before the full implications of their own positions became apparent. The reformers believed Chinese peasants would be interested in the reforms if it were shown to bring benefits to them. With the support of the peasants, once implemented it would be very difficult to turn back from the elections.

In 1987, National People\u2019s Congress passed the Village Organic Law (VOL) allowing elections for local officials in rural villages. Villages were no longer considered part of the overall Communist Party (CCP) system. Villagers would now vote to choose the director, vice-director and members of a village committee, with control over aspects of the local economy. By establishing villages as autonomous and self- managing, supporters of the VOL bill hoped to temper the power of township officials y setting clear limits to their authority and defining village obligations explicitly.

been encouraged to implement their own regulations. This includes the drafting of \u2018village charters\u2019 committing members to run the committee democratically or face recall, in a bid to reduce corruption and increase public confidence in the process.

Despite the passage of the VOL, many local officials and incumbent leaders were unsurprisingly opposed to direct elections in rural China. Because the VOL had been passed by the National People's Congress it was hard for opponents of reform to argue openly against it. They could, however, claim special hardship in their localities and request a delay in holding elections 'to maintain stability'. They could also hold single-candidate elections that would not threaten their position. As expected by the

reformers, when elections were first introduced cadres tended to treat them as a formality. In some cases officials balked at unexpected results and did not honour them. However, a small number of particularly corrupt and disliked officials found themselves voted out of office, and the word spread. According the Ministry of Civil Affairs (MCA), most villagers did not pay much attention to the first round of elections, but by the third time, many had actively participated. By the time conservative local bureaucrats woke up to the threat posed by elections, the elections had won acceptance among the peasants. There was little local officials could do except control the nomination of candidates. In 1999, local officials were further hampered by the introduction of an open nomination process, known ashaixuan (vote from the sea). Reformers continue to progress in improving the elections.

So how democratic are these elections? Research found that since the implementation of village elections, attitudes have shifted towards what one could regard as a strong sense of democratic ideals. Few villagers believed that only those with specialised knowledge should be allowed to speak during the process of decision-making. Many villagers acknowledged their right to petition higher authorities when dissatisfied with local policies. Villagers strongly rejected that Chinese accept non-democratic politics as long as they can make money.2The perception of a good election among villagers has also changed. Research noted that in early the 1990s, an election was considered good if there was minimal violent confrontation, disturbance or kinship fighting. There is now considerably more interest in meaningful competition and for elections to follow a set of sound procedures.3 Scholars also concluded that in rural Mainland China, like Taiwan and Hong Kong, participating in a democratic process has led to strong democratic aspirations and ideals.4

Researchers also investigated the attitude towards the integrity of village elections and found that a large proportion of villagers no longer believed the CCP had the ability or the inclination to manipulate elections. The open nomination process and secret ballot have helped improve confidence in the process. Elections were becoming increasingly competitive. More and more elections involve more than one candidate, and turnover of elected officials has increased significantly. The percent of village leaders taking office for the first time has increased year on year, from 36.8% in 1996, 43.2% in 1997 to 52.5% in 1999.5According to the MCA, about 30%-50% of newly elected village heads were not CCP members. With the most obvious breaches of electoral laws, Beijing also moved to punish those responsible. In addition, by legitimising alternative forms of political activity such as protests and petitions to higher levels of authority (in strictly limited numbers) the CCP has demonstrated that it is more willing to listen to at least some complaints of the people. Apparently this has led to a reduced number of protests, although this claim cannot be verified independently and is contested by other researchers.