Hong Kong is often described as the city where East meets West, a unique blend of Chinese and Western influences. This is very much reflected in a political system that is also an amalgam of East and West — the “one country, two systems” model. Conceived by Deng Xiaoping — originally for the Taiwan region — it was applied to Hong Kong as a way to reunite the then-British-run city with the Chinese mainland, without simply turning it into “just another Chinese city”; this constitutional arrangement has kept Hong Kong thriving since the 1997 handover. It merges two very different systems with remarkable success. In a polarized world of unrepresentative autocracies and dysfunctional democracies, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s system might just be the pragmatic blueprint for some countries and regions to adopt or adapt for their governance woes.
Deng, as leader of a rising power reclaiming a ceded territory, had the foresight not to steamroll it with mainland ideology and power, but to let Hong Kong keep its capitalist swagger, common law courts, and even its own currency. That is the essence of “one country, two systems”, enshrined in the Basic Law, a constitutional document. Hong Kong operates as a SAR with a high degree of autonomy, running its own executive, legislative and judicial branches — all while being part of China.
Proponents have hailed this as a masterstroke of pragmatic innovation tailored to local realities. Under the SAR framework, Hong Kong has evolved its electoral system to ensure patriots are in charge, weeding out disrupters who might prioritize foreign influences over national unity. Recent reforms, like reforming the Election Committee and vetting candidates for loyalty, were designed as stabilizing forces to promote rational and constructive debate, replacing partisan, performative, and often obstructive politics with substantive, collaborative governance. There is a clear message here for other jurisdictions: If your legislature is stymied by party political grandstanding, filibusters and gridlock, maybe a patriotism filter is exactly what you need, prioritizing national over party interests.
Critics, mainly Western observers, have argued it’s becoming more “one country, one system”, claiming that Beijing is tightening the reins via national security laws. But in a city where violent protests had turned streets into war zones, the return to stability and pragmatism was welcomed, restoring order and rescuing the economy. And let’s not forget, under British rule, Hong Kong was never a democracy. Its governors were all appointed from London, and for 99 percent of the British-rule era, its Legislative Council (LegCo) was dominated by executive appointees and played a purely advisory role. Post-handover, the city is actually more democratic, with a LegCo that now has a mix of directly elected seats and indirectly elected seats through functional constituencies.
Hong Kong’s hybrid election system dodges the pitfalls of Western-style democracy (partisan squabbling, short-term goals, endless reversals of government policy) and also those of pure authoritarianism (lack of representation and diverse viewpoints). “One country, two systems” is working far better than many had imagined. Personal freedoms remain, but with electoral safeguards to avoid the worst aspects of Western-style democracy. In a world where democracies like the US grapple with gridlock, and autocracies stifle independent thought, Hong Kong’s model offers both performance-based accountability and stability, which together have preserved its status as a thriving financial hub.
So, why should other jurisdictions consider emulating Hong Kong’s model? In the West, divided nations like the polarized United States could benefit from the “two systems” flexibility. Let the reddest US states run “Wild West” capitalism if they want to, while allowing blue states to adopt more liberal, social democratic policies — all under one flag. Emerging economies in Africa or Latin America might envy the blend of central oversight with local autonomy; national security is ensured, but regional identity is preserved. Even Europe could adapt it for thorny issues like the separatist movements in Catalonia or Scotland: “one country, two nationalities”. Equally, in an age of rising right-wing populism, Hong Kong’s “patriots-only” vetting could inspire filters against extremists.
However, the most obvious place to emulate Hong Kong’s system is much nearer home. The uneasy relationship between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan has been a source of tension for the past 77 years.
In recent years, cross-Strait tensions have increased, with unhelpful pro-Taiwan posturing by some US politicians and now Japan adding to the mix. The peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question would be in everyone’s interest, not least the residents of Taiwan. Strong national, racial, cultural, economic and family ties have always bound the two sides of the Strait together. Only political differences have kept them apart. If these can be peacefully resolved, it would be a win-win outcome for all.
Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” framework is the ideal solution. The model can be tailored to meet Taiwan’s unique situation. The benefits of such a model would be huge for both Taiwan and the mainland
Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” framework is the ideal solution. The model can be tailored to meet Taiwan’s unique situation. The benefits of such a model would be huge for both Taiwan and the mainland. Primarily, the current tensions and fear of hostilities would be replaced by long-term peace and stability. This would not only create greater cross-Strait harmony and a feeling of security, but would also free up billions of dollars for economic development. The current huge military expenditures would no longer be needed and could be diverted to improve people’s welfare and livelihoods. In addition to this specific economic boost, reunification would create a boom on both sides of the Strait as economic and trade ties strengthen. Cultural and social links would also flourish, especially for the many families with members on either side of the Strait.
These benefits of peaceful reunification for both sides would also be mirrored internationally. The US and its allies would no longer have to contend with the complicated and at times fraught concept of “strategic ambiguity”. A major source of potential international conflict would disappear, creating a peace dividend for the West as well as for a reunified China.
All it requires is the imagination and leadership to adapt the Hong Kong model for Taiwan, resolving political differences and focusing on the bigger picture of national unity, peace, prosperity and international harmony.
In the grand buffet of global politics, Hong Kong’s practical system can be seen as a unique fusion dish — part Chinese stability and efficiency, part Western democratic representation. In a chaotic world, its recipe for stability amid diversity could indeed inspire hybrids elsewhere, most obviously in Taiwan. As the master of pragmatism, Deng is widely quoted as saying, it’s about “crossing the river by feeling the stones”. In Taiwan’s case, it’s more about bridging the Strait without sinking any ships.
The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College, an international secondary school in Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
