By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The League of Social Democrats, one of Hong Kong’s last major pro-democracy parties, announced its disbandment on Sunday due to immense pressure and the pervasiveness of “red lines.” This decision follows careful deliberation, aimed at averting “consequences” for its members, and arrives just days before the fifth anniversary of the Beijing-imposed national security law. The party, known for its street protests and founded nearly two decades ago, cited the erosion of civil society and suppression of dissent, with its leadership having faced imprisonment and its bank accounts being closed. With the majority of Hong Kong’s political opposition either detained or having fled, the party’s vice-chairman believes it is no longer safe to run a political party, and that the political rights have almost totally disappeared in Hong Kong.
Read the original article here
One of Hong Kong’s last major pro-democracy parties disbands, marking another significant blow to the city’s shrinking political landscape. This is, unfortunately, the third major opposition party to dissolve this year. The party, once known for its active street protests and vocal criticisms of the government, cited “careful deliberation” as the driving force behind its decision, along with the need to avoid any potential “consequences” for its members. The announcement came just days before the fifth anniversary of the Beijing-imposed national security law, a stark reminder of the changing political climate. The party was unable to elaborate on the precise timing of its closure, only acknowledging that it had been facing “intense pressure.”
Over its 19-year history, the party has witnessed a gradual erosion of the freedoms that once defined Hong Kong. They’ve endured internal conflicts and witnessed the effective imprisonment of much of their leadership, along with the steady decline of civil society. It seems the grassroots voices have faded, the red lines have become omnipresent, and dissent faces severe suppression. It’s a grim picture, and some might even say this is the final nail in the coffin for any semblance of democracy in Hong Kong. The reality is that, sadly, the campaign to quell the fight for freedom has been quite successful. Just a decade ago, thousands of Hong Kongers would take to the streets to voice their opinions, but now, it feels like that spirit has dwindled to almost nothing.
It’s hard to see how substantial freedom would be granted back, at least without a fundamental shift in the current regime. Modern authoritarian states are extremely adept at using technology to control dissidents. The situation serves as a sobering lesson for those in other regions who may be wary of similar events. Comparing the current situation to the past, it’s undeniable that the freedoms that existed, even under British rule, are no longer present. While the UK monitored communications, it’s not truly comparable to the extent of control now. Back then, Hong Kong thrived as the pearl of Asia, benefiting from its position as a trade port. However, today, it’s just another port city, overshadowed by the economic might of its mainland neighbors.
The prosperity of Hong Kong was largely built upon its status as a trade hub between China and the rest of the world. Before, there was freedom of commerce, press, and expression, without needing Beijing’s approval. Now, all forms of communication are monitored, mirroring a system where only government-approved candidates are allowed to run for any office. This level of control is a stark contrast to the past.
Looking back to the period between 1997 and 2019, Hong Kong enjoyed more political freedom than it had under British rule. Though, it’s important to remember that even under the UK, there were limitations. The US’s own democracy is a complex thing, and it’s important to remember that the definition of these freedoms has changed over time. A critical aspect of the former government was an expectation that politicians would act in good faith, and the courts would provide a check. However, in the past 10 years, all of that has been eroded. The rise of the current system shows why goodwill alone is not enough to run a government.
The history of Hong Kong has some parallels with the story of Trieste in Italy. Trieste was on the edge of its cultural sphere and was passed around by imperial powers. It was heavily developed and its population exploded. Then there was a big debate about its identity and what country it should be a part of. Eventually, it was reunited with its “core” neighbor, only to find that they weren’t quite the same as they thought. The local language and culture came into conflict with the motherland. Economically, the city was no longer special. The economy stagnated, and the population shrank. Similarly, Hong Kong was a colony, and its very existence owes to colonialism. The Europeans would have used other cities if the Chinese hadn’t been isolationists.
One significant difference now versus before the CCP took control is the degree of freedom in communication. The UK permitted independent VPNs and encryption, whereas in China, only approved services are permitted.