Elections work best when people feel their participation has a clear connection to outcomes. Political science offers a helpful framework for understanding this dynamic. Mark N Franklin, who studies voter turnout, uses the word “salience” to describe the perceived effect an individual vote has on governing decisions. When people believe their votes can shape policy or shift priorities, they tend to participate at higher rates. International examples illustrate this point. In Switzerland, where decision-making is widely distributed across levels of government and many questions go to a public referendum, turnout for federal legislative elections is often lower, as citizens see other channels for influence. In Malta, where a single legislature holds much of the political authority and even minor electoral swings can affect who governs, turnout is among the highest in the world. The difference is not a value judgment; it reflects how institutions shape expectations about impact.
In the case of Hong Kong, the special administrative region government consults widely before promulgating policy initiatives or tabling bills to the legislature. But more can be done to help voters realize that their participation has a clear connection to voting outcomes. One constructive way forward is to increase the visible connection between public representation and policy design, while maintaining Hong Kong’s executive-led governance framework. The goal is simple: Help voters see how their chosen representatives inform, refine, and improve policy proposals before final votes occur. When that link is clear, enthusiasm for elections will grow significantly for sure.
At present, policy design typically begins within the civil service, guided by policy directions set by political appointees. Legislative Council members then debate proposals, offer refinements, and vote. This sequence has advantages in clarity and efficiency. It could also create an impression that LegCo is less engaged, because much of the substantive work has already taken place before the bill reaches the floor.
To strengthen public confidence in the process, the government could expand and formalize pre-legislative engagement with LegCo. One reference point is the consultative approach associated with the two sessions on the Chinese mainland, where broad input from different sectors is gathered ahead of final decisions. Adapting this principle to Hong Kong’s context could emphasize early dialogue and transparent responses to feedback, while adhering to the executive-led feature of the system.
In practice, this could involve publishing a concise policy paper for major bills that explains the problem/issue, objectives, and policy options considered. LegCo members could organize into topic-focused groups — such as housing, social welfare, public finance, health, innovation, or the environment — reflecting both expertise and sectoral representation. These groups would hold structured discussions with policy officials and analysts, share evidence-based suggestions, and invite targeted input from stakeholders. Importantly, the government could publish follow-up responses to key recommendations — accepting, modifying, or setting aside proposals with brief explanations, just like how the State Council of the People’s Republic of China reacts to opinions or proposals submitted by members of the National People’s Congress and of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference — so the public can see how ideas travel from discussion to draft.
Where agreement is reached, the government should incorporate mutually accepted changes before floor debate, and only once a broad consensus has been formed should the motion proceed to a vote. This sequencing aims to achieve a broad agreement from LegCo — reflecting substantive alignment built during consultation — similar in essence to the mainland’s practice of extensive pre-vote engagement that produces clear majorities. The result would be a clearer record of how LegCo contributes to shaping bills, how differing perspectives are reconciled, and how a majority is earned by the executive branch.
This approach remains consistent with an executive-led system, in which the government sets direction and leads on policy design. Early engagement does not dilute leadership; it broadens insight and helps identify practical adjustments. When the executive and legislators work together earlier in the process, a strong final vote can signal shared understanding. That, in turn, can help voters see that representation matters throughout the life of a proposal, not only at the moment of passage.
Greater visibility into this process can also help voters evaluate their representatives. If the public can trace how legislators raised specific concerns, suggested amendments, or brought sector knowledge to bear, elections become clearer choices about styles of problem-solving and areas of focus. Over time, that clarity can raise salience: People feel their vote supports a particular approach to policy, and they are more likely to participate.
Any process change should be practical. The consultation stage should be focused and disciplined, with clear timelines and documentation, to avoid duplication of technical work by the civil service. The aim is not to prolong decision-making, but to make input easier to follow and outcomes easier to understand.
Ultimately, turnout is shaped by expectations. When voters experience a visible path from their ballot to their representative’s input and onward to policy details, participation becomes a more straightforward choice. Hong Kong has long emphasized orderly governance and effective implementation. Strengthening early-stage collaboration between the executive and LegCo can support both goals: better-designed policies that draw from a wide range of expertise, and a clearer sense among the public that elections are an effective way to influence public priorities.
Elections are periodic, but policymaking is continuous. By linking the two more clearly — without altering the overall balance of the system — Hong Kong can help ensure that more residents feel that their voices are reflected in the work of the institutions that serve them. If people can clearly see that their representatives’ views are heard and, where appropriate, integrated, a vote becomes not just a symbol of civic duty but a practical tool for contributing to the city’s better future.
The author is a consultant at the Global Hong Kong Institute.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
