The principle one state two systems toward its end, will be the future of Hong Kong

The issue of Hong Kong began in 1997 with the signing of Margaret Thatcher and Deng Xiaoping put on the Treaty sanctioned the transfer of sovereignty of the British colony, from the UK to China. Under the conditions signed by the two leaders there was a clause of the two political systems within the same state, guaranteed for 50 years. This rule was intended to ensure, during this long period of transition, autonomy in internal affairs of Hong Kong, which China today, more than that of twenty years ago, accused in a clear and sharp. At the base of the signing of the treaty, there was a belief that the country of China could make substantial progress in the political field, which at the end of the path independence of the former British colony, would allow the two systems to be integrated automatically. Not even halfway through the period agreed China denounces a stagnation in terms of the progress of civil and political liberties, which does not allow him to accept that part of its territory may deviate from the tight constraints imposed by the Communist Party of China. This is the real crux of the matter and central: within the one state, two systems are totally incompatible and that Hong Kong is likely to endanger the security and stability of that of Beijing, a necessary condition to continue the economic development of China, based on a top-down chain of command, which does not allow deviations. Beijing, and with it much of China, does not have the necessary tools to understand why the inhabitants of a territory which has an efficient legal system, which has considerable freedom, combined with a high well-being can protest for the exercise of voting rights applied to a choice of candidates that is not exclusive expression of the central power. We are facing, that is, a comparison largely unpublished for the Chinese nation, accustomed to protests against corruption, rights at work and against the growing inequality, but not for the struggle of those who want to choose who to be governed. Of course, behind this claim, there are all the consequences that a free election brings with it, and first of all it is sure not to be interfered with by the Chinese government. Subverting the anticipation and expectations at the base of the treaty of cession of Hong Kong, there is the desire to transform the former British colony to China and not vice versa. This trend needs to be opened by changing the rules of voting, offering a choice among candidates endorsed by the central government. The choices would be limited to three candidates, all expression of Beijing, which should be emptied of all meaning the political election; it is certainly a first step to defeat the popular consultations, tire population of the periodicity of the vote, to eliminate the exercise of the active electorate and equalize the two systems on the basis of the existing one in Beijing. These considerations raise the fate of Hong Kong in the direction decided by China, also in view of the fact that the richest part of the country, with the Chinese rules, can not get out of that advantage, thanks to the total control of local institutions, which can truncate the bud any dispute over charges. Certainly the intentions of the British government were not these, but once again London is responsible for a process of decolonization ended badly, due to the lack of foresight.