With the unveiling of the decision from the National People's Congress Standing Committee, the second of the five steps to reform Hong Kong's electoral system has been accomplished. The Chinese government has showed its determination to move forward with the reform of the electoral system in Hong Kong. All controversy aside, Hong Kong is much closer to the democratic election of its Chief Executive, a matter which is worthy of celebration.

However, some extremists in Hong Kong are still dissatisfied with this result. They allege that this is a "backsliding from democracy", and have even threatened to interfere with the reform of the electoral system.

The British government administered Hong Kong as a colony for 150 years. Hong Kong citizens had no voice at all during that period of time, far less any right to a vote in a general election. What kind of logic applies to the theory of "backsliding from democracy" when the Chinese government is launching a system of general election from scratch?

The source of the extremists anger has nothing to do with democracy, but with the decision of the NPC Standing committee which leaves them slim hopes of electing their own preferred candidate as Chief Executive. According to the decision, two to three candidates for the position of Chief Executive will be provided by the nominations committee through democratic processes; all of the nominees must have the approval of more than half of the nominations committee. The 1,200 members of the nominations committee are all from different fields of society and represent the interests of people from all walks of life. Extreme opponents from the “non-mainstream” are unlikely to gain the support of half of the committee.

This is why opponents of reform are insisting on public nominations, and have carried out Occupy Central as a direct challenge to the decisions of the NPC Standing committee. The Chinese government believes that most of the citizens of Hong Kong will make a clear distinction between right and wrong, and come to a rational judgment.

According to the new clause, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong has to "love the country, and love Hong Kong". Some opponents have protested against this, arguing that it represents the ideology of the Chinese government. But any governor or mayor of any city anywhere in the world ought to love their own country. "Love the country, and love Hong Kong" should be self-evident as a political ethic. The reason for the existence of the clause is that in the past there have been politicians in Hong Kong who have defied the Chinese government and put Hong Kong at risk. What would be the benefit to the citizens of Hong Kong in having someone like this elected as Chief Executive?

It is unhelpful to keep arguing about idealized visions of democracy, rather than making a realistic assessment of the issue based on what is most suitable for and beneficial to the prosperity and development of Hong Kong now. During the period when Hong Kong was governed by the British government, its people said they had "freedom, but no democracy". At this stage, the democratic process in Hong Kong is still immature. The process of democratization has to move forward one step at a time.

The nominations committee used to be the electoral committee of Hong Kong, a system which has been tried and tested and has proved effective. If the general election can be realized in 2017, it will be an epoch-making event for Hong Kong. The general election is a great opportunity for Hong Kong to develop democracy as well as the "one country, two systems" policy. Extremist opponents intent on sabotaging the general election have nothing to offer to the people of Hong Kong.

This article is edited and translated from 《香港极端反对派不要沦为历史罪人》，source: People's Daily, author: Wang Ping