While the Basic Law and "One Country, Two Systems" policy provide a framework for the implementation of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive (CE) election in 2017, recent tensions between "Occupy Central" and anti-"Occupy" supporters are worrying. Before the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPSCS) announces its decision on electoral reform at the end of August, the central government and the "pan-democrats" must work hard to overcome the present political stalemate. The stalemate has polarized Hong Kong society and may do long-term damage to the city's cohesiveness.

Triggered by the opposition camp's collection of 800,000 of their supporters' signatures and continued threats to escalate their protests if the central government didn't meet their demands on a nomination threshold for candidates, the anti-"Occupy" supporters responded by gathering 1.5 million signatures (250,000 are said to have joined the Aug 17 rallies). Judging from the numerical differences between the two sets of signatures, if an election were held today, a "pan-democrat" candidate would not win. Continued verbal threats will only stiffen Beijing's resolve not to yield. It will also upset many ordinary Hongkongers. They are concerned about the polarization of society and the threat to their livelihoods.

Moreover, the "pan-democrats" do not appear to have earned sufficient trust from the central government in regard to their support for the "One Country" principle.

While there are apparently no "universal" or "international standards" of democracy, there is a good guiding principle on "loving the country". This occurred on Jan 20, 1961. The then US president John F. Kennedy said, in his iconic inaugural address, that his fellow Americans should "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". JFK's appeal still resonates with people from many countries (and I hope with Chinese people as well). It is reasonable, therefore, to question the arguments of the "pan-democrats". If the current election package were to be accepted, would the Hong Kong government be full of pro-Beijing factions? Presumably this would be harmful to Hong Kong's interests? This only adds to the current confusion. Are the "pan-democrats" implying that pro-Beijing politicians are "incompetent" and would not take care of Hongkongers' interests? Where is the proof that the opposition camp can field more competent CE candidates?

However, there is a constructive way for the two sides to reach a compromise. This would accommodate the interests of the central government and the SAR.

To overcome the bottleneck, Beijing and the "pan-democrats" should agree on a CE candidacy nomination threshold. The former proposes that candidates should obtain 50 percent support from the 1,200 Nominating Committee members. The latter proposed a lower threshold of one-eighth. I suggest five-16ths should be the threshold, which is the midpoint between a half and one-eighth. This would allow easier entry and provide equal opportunities for more candidates. This "mid-way resolution" is fair, because it requires each side to make an equal compromise.

This could, hopefully, put the issue of the "legitimacy" of CE to rest. It could soften the confrontational rhetoric coming from the opposition camp.

Next, after the candidates are nominated, the Nominating Committee would start a "special veto mechanism" as proposed by Hong Kong Policy Research Institute Executive Director Fung Ho-keung. The mechanism could eliminate unsuitable candidates. It would include (but not be limited to) checking their track record on "love the country, love Hong Kong".

This screening procedure would increase the likelihood of the reform package being approved by two-thirds of Legislative Council members before Hong Kong voters cast their votes for CE candidates.

Sound political reform should not end with elections. The performance of the elected CE and his/her cabinet should be regularly evaluated by polling organizations, think tanks, media and government agencies. These could continuously monitor Hong Kong's political progress as a reference point for future reform - if needed. So, the 2017 reform package can be viewed as the starting point for a joint political venture for all Hong Kong parties and the central government.

In future Hong Kong must embrace a positive, new, political culture if we are to continue to prosper and live in harmony together.

The author is an independent scholar and freelance writer. She is also the founder and president of the China-US Friendship Exchange, Inc.

(HK Edition 08/28/2014 page9)