8 ★ FINANCIAL TIMES Wednesday13 November 2019
Scrap two-party system to
lessen hostility in politics
Gideon Rachman’s excellent column
“Our age of democratic deadlock”
(November 5) addresses the rise of
political gridlock. He most saliently
states that fracturing two-party
systems and rising polarisation lead ot
gridlock in politics. Yet our research
finds that these two trends can clash
with each other. New Zealand enacted
a political reform in 1996, changing
from a first-past-the-post to a
proportional representation system.
This decisively ended its two-party
politics. As we find in a recent working
paper, “Civility and Hostility in
Parliamentary Politics”, this led to less
hostility by the two big parties due to
the necessity of coalition-building after
the reform; our results find that
politicians use some hostility
strategically.
This suggests that if parties are
willing to accept the end of two-party
politics, or are forced to accept it due to
political reform, this may result in a
reduction in the use of hostile speeches
by politicians. To the extent that
countries polarise because of how
political elites behave, then the end of
two-party systems may decrease
hostility and, with it, polarisation.
Kuniaki Nemoto
Associate Professor
Pedro Franco de Campos Pinto
Assistant Professor
Musashi University, Tokyo, JapanHong Kong’s fundamental
rights are enshrined in law
Charles Li may speak in London for
Hong Kong’s stock exchange but not
for its people nor its constitution when
he suggests that “the only thing we
didn’t have is political rights” (“Hong
Kong bourse boss questions ‘one
country, two systems’ , October 31).”
Hong Kong residents have
fundamental rights and freedoms
specified under the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region’s constitution,
the Basic Law (enacted by China’s
National People’s Congress). The
stated purpose of the law is to
safeguard those rights and freedoms,
which include: the right to vote and the
right to stand for election; freedom of
speech, of the press, of association, of
assembly, of procession and of
demonstration; the right to join trade
unions and to strike; freedom from
arbitrary or unlawful detention;
freedom of conscience and of religious
belief; access to and representation in
the courts; and so on. And while not
entitlements by right, the Basic Law
defines as “the ultimate aim” both the
selection of Hong Kong’s chief
executive and the election of all themembers of its Legislative Council by
universal suffrage.
Some of these rights — for instance,
the right to vote — are explicitly
political rights. The majority are
defined as political rights under the
UN’s International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, to which China is
also a signatory, and are served in Hong
Kong by an administrative framework
which the Basic Law defines as political
structure.
A proper understanding of the Basic
Law and the fundamental rights and
freedoms it safeguards should be
critical for those who — like Mr Li —
may be seen to be representing Hong
Kong at a time when many of those
rights (not least of assembly and
demonstration) are under increasingly
strident challenges.
Andrew Korner
Pok Fu Lam, Hong KongCarrie Lam’s authority is
accountable to voters too
Hong Kong’scurrent political crisis s ai
vivid real-time exposition of the perils
of unaccountable government. It is
inconceivable that any chief executive
of Hong Kong, facing the free and fair
electoral judgment of the Hong Kong
people, would have, like Carrie Lam:- Introduced the extradition bill at all,
let alone ignored, for months, the
peaceful protests of millions for its
withdrawal. - Refused to independently investigate
the incontrovertible evidence of police
brutality and other misconduct and the
widespread suspicion of infiltration of
the police force by the Chinese
government’s paramilitary police
whilst arresting over 2,000 protesters. - Engineered a housing crisis which
stuffs the government’s coffers with
hundreds of billions of dollars while
making affordable housing impossible
for millions of Hong Kongers.- Refused, despite these obvious
failings, to genuinely reconsider the
question of real political accountability
to Hong Kongers.
Thanks must go to Deng Xiaoping for
his inspired “one country two systems”
solution to returningHong Kong —
which was never a self-ruled
representative democracy but blessed
with the important trappings of one,
such as rule of law, an independent
judiciary and freedom of the press — to
a ruler to which these concepts were
antithetical.
And thank you, Ms Lam, for the
clearest possible demonstration that
the success of “one country two
systems” depends wholly on what was
promised — ie, that the Hong Kong
administration would be genuinely
accountable not just to Beijing but to
Hong Kong voters too.
Bill Ahern
Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong
Natural gas has had its day
in the climate change era
Nick Butler’s op-ed “Technology can
help natural gas stay competitive”
(FT.com, November 7) opens by
stating that “natural gas is the fuel of
the moment” — before rightly
addressing a number of barriers to its
success.
The plummeting cost of renewables
means that new gas is not the most
economic means of building coal-free
electricity systems. Gas’s high
production costs and supply chain
complexity add to the case for more
locally produced wind and solar being
the true 21st century energy solutions.
But most fundamentally, Mr Butler
highlights the huge environmental
impact of gas — a problem that
technological ingenuity is unlikely
to solve. Even the 2050 net zero
scenario proposed by the UK’s
Committee on Climate Change — the
basis for the government’s own climate
actions, and criticised by some for its
conservatism — has no room for
unabated gas in the UK’s 2050 power
mix.
What gas is included must be
accompanied by carbon capture and
storage (CCS), a chimeric technology
yet to demonstrate its large-scale
economic feasibility — and even gas
with CCS is still dwarfed by the share of
renewables foreseen.
Mr Butler’s article presents a
balanced argument, but this is undone
by its headline. The climate is in crisis.
What possible justification is there for
fighting for gas to stay competitive?
Sam Bright
Energy Lawyer,
ClientEarth,
London E8, UKUS history teaches that
fiscal union can work but
is not without problemsTom Brown’s letter (“First 20 years of
euro does not support classic view of
fixed exchange rate effects”, November
7) should be read in the context of the
American experience. It is rather
strange that EU critics always seem to
expect immediate perfection of
eurozone and EU economic and
political problems.
The fact that Greece, Ireland and
Spain have spent more than they can
pay as members of the eurozone seems
almost quaint to an American. In
America following the Civil War, most
southern states have been net gainers
from the federal treasury. They
routinely pay less in taxes for services
and benefits they receive from the
federal budget. This has been a moral
and fiscal concern in America for more
than 150 years, excepting the costs of
Reconstruction. It has been a moral
concern as once Reconstruction failed,
southern politicians used federal funds
to benefit the white minority by the
Black Codes and Jim Crow laws and
discrimination in systematic racism.
The fiscal concern was that southern
senators (among others) constantly
manipulated federal budgets to gain
more and more tax money paid by
other states out of the federal tax
revenue.
Another aspect of the fiscal side was
a lack of accountability where federal
funds for projects for education and
infrastructure were not equally
available due to racism and corruption,
as anyone could see visiting the south
in the 1960s, and the state of education
in most southern states up to the
1980s, especially for African
Americans. The history of this
manipulation of the federal budget can
be found in a paper, “The President
and the Distribution of Federal
Spending”, by Christopher R Berry,
Barry C Burden, William G Howell.
This American history should be seen
as a background upon which an
integration of the EU can take place.
Fiscal union can work, but it has
certain problems of distribution. It is
not a perfect system and eurozone
members should recognise that. They
will have to form “a more perfect
union”, as our US founders tried. At
least the EU does not have the
institutional racism America has had to
deal with, which has been at the core of
inequalities in budgets and distribution
among the states.
Dr Niccolo Caldararo
Dept of Anthropology,
San Francisco State University, USImmigration looms large
over American elections
Edward Luce hits the nail right on the
head (“America’s cultural tensions will
test limits of its democracy”, Global
Insight, November 8). Many
Americans are opposed to
undocumented immigration (while
sympathising with the plight of
migrants).
They do not appreciate being
labelled as racists for those views. In
2016, Democrats lost the election
largely for the contempt in which they
held those who disagreed with them on
this issue. Will they make the same
mistake in 2020?
Néstor Enrique Cruz
Attorney and Counsellor,
Falls Church, VA, USFour decades after I graduated from
college fancying myself a communist,
I can’t quite believe I’m in a classroom
at myalma mater debating the future
of socialism. I’m attending a weekly
meeting of the Young Democratic
Socialists of America at the University
of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in a
classroom in the same lecture hall
where I first read as KapitalD n thei
1970s.
Since I’m old enough to be the
grandmother of most of the 20-odd
students present — all but one of them
male — I can’t help getting straight to
the point. I’ve spent most of life living
in failed communist or socialist states
in Africa and Asia. o I had a ringsideS
seat to the “end of history” — the
period when the liberal democracies
of the west declared victory over
communism and socialism.
As we mark the 30th anniversary of
the fall of the Berlin Wall, I’m surely
not the only older American voter
who is musing on cold war lessons. So
why are we still discussing socialism?
One reason is this: theDemocratic
Socialists of America, who had 5,
members before Donald Trump was
elected US president in 2016, now
have nearly 60,000 — and they have
endorsed Democraticpresidential
candidate Bernie Sanders.
The students are clutching “Sanders
2020” placards, fully a year before the
election. These are activists who could
make a real difference to the
Democratic presidential primaries,
which kick off on February 3 in Iowa.
But they could also have a big impact— though not the one they intend —
on the eventual contest with Mr
Trump. Political analysts say they
could unwittingly deliver victory to
him again, by scaring away
Democratic voters in swing states who
prefer more moderate candidates.
In Michigan, a recentNew York
Times/Siena college poll f voterso
across six battleground states found
that Mr Sanders is polling at just 17
per cent, well behind moderate
former vice-president Joe Biden at 30
per cent and Elizabeth Warren, who
has described herself as “a capitalist to
my bones”, at 21 per cent.
But YDSA member Joe Carter, 20,
dismisses the argument that winning
next year’s presidential election is
“about winning over moderates”.
James Aidala, 18, studying politics and
geology, chips in that the strategy is
“to bring new voters into the fold”. Joe
Lobodzinski, 20, says Democrats
failed to turn out for Hillary Clinton in
2016 “because they didn’t believe
there was going to be any meaningful
change”. Justin Yuan, 19, says, “We
learnt our lesson from 2016” and the
Democrats need a “change” candidate
if they are to win.
But can such a candidate espouse
policies that have arguably failed in
the lifetime of much of the electorate?
“I was raised after the ‘end of history’,”
says Mr Carter. “The younger
generation is more comfortable with
labels like ‘socialist’ because we didn’t
live through the cold war era. We are
all aware of the various failures of
states labelled (by themselves orothers) as socialist. But my idea of
socialism isn’t ‘socialism equals USSR
equals Venezuela equals
authoritarianism equals gulags’.”
What Mr Carter means by the term is
rather “expansion of the welfare state,
human rights and protection from the
harshest cruelties and injustices of
capitalism”, he says, dubbing it
“Scandinavia (ish)”. “All we’ve known
is capitalism and we don’t want this
any more.”
A week later, I’m back, listening to
debates about the definition of the
working class at a session of Socialist
Night School convened by the Chicago
branch of Democratic Socialists of
America. Forty-odd union organisers,
teachers, professionals and workers
have gathered in a union hall on a
frigid November night to debate how
to use strikes to improve social
conditions beyond the workplace.
But I’m still troubled by cold war
memories. “In this era of the growth
of the socialist movement we don’t
feel particularly tied to the failures of
the cold war,” says Ramsin Canon,
political education co-ordinator for
Chicago DSA, a labour and
employment lawyer. “Capitalism is in
a very advanced state but it is also in a
very self-destructive state, it’s in an
unsustainable state, it’s eating itself,
which was not the situation in the
1960s,” he says.
Only time will tell if lines like that
will get Mr Sanders’ voters out in a
cold February in Iowa.[email protected]Shadows of the
cold war fade
for Michigan’s
young socialists
Ann Arbor
Notebook
by Patti Waldmeir
You report that council members of the
European Central Bank are actively
considering reforms to the
management of monetary policy (“ECB
policy team asks Lagarde for bigger say
on monetary decisions”, November 11).
Mandatory voting on changes in
interest rates, different reporting
arrangements and similar procedural
changes may increase transparency.
But they miss the bigger picture.
What’s really needed is a change in
the ECB’s mandate. At present, this is
focused exclusively on price stability.The Fed, by contrast, has a dual
mandate that is informed not by
inflation alone but also by shifts in the
real economy. The inflexibility of the
ECB compared with the Fed was very
apparent during the eurozone crisis
and its aftermath. The ECB was forced
into the contortions and distortions of
quantitative easing to accommodate
shocks to expenditure and demand
across the EU, especially the periphery,
within the too-narrow confines of its
mandate.
The consequences are all around —in institutions, in markets and on
balance sheets.
It may have made sense — indeed, it
was a political imperative — to
transpose the anti-inflation mandate of
the Bundesbank across to the fledgling
ECB. But these are different times.
If the ECB is to serve the needs of all
of the European Union, it must adapt
its mandate. Procedural changes, such
as are now being debated, are a
deflection from real reform.
Prof Ray Kinsella
Ashford, Wicklow, IrelandEurope’s central bank must adapt its mandate
Letters
WEDNESDAY13 NOVEMBER 2019Email: [email protected]
Include daytime telephone number and full address
Corrections: [email protected]
If you are not satisfied with the FT’s response to your complaint, you can appeal
to the FT Editorial Complaints Commissioner: [email protected]In the immediate aftermath of the
financial crisis, bashing a banker was
the favourite pastime of politicians,
regardless of their hue. A decade later,
and since theBrexitreferendum in
2016, the custom has become
ingrained and extended to include
nearly every kind of big business. Com-
panies find themselves dismissed by
both main parties as rapacious capital-
ists or whingeing “Remoaners”. As
Britons prepare to vote next month in
an election that could fundamentally
reshape the economy, one voice is not
beingheard:thatofbusiness.
The normal place for that voice to be
foundwouldbetheConservativeparty.
It was long the natural party of busi-
ness, supportive of free enterprise and
a reduction in the size of the state. But
thisConservativepartyishappytoplay
fast and loose with those old certain-
ties. Boris Johnson has promised the
most entrepreneur-friendly adminis-
tration the country has seen — conven-
iently forgetting that he not long ago
dismissedbusinessopiniononBrexitin
the mostdirectofterms.MargotJames,
a former Conservative MP for Stour-
bridge and business minister, elo-
quently lamented the way the party
has “hung business out to dry” inces
2016, with scant regard for companies’
concerns.
The Labour party has moved a long
way from the days when it happily
cosied up to big business under the
leadership of Tony Blair. Under Jeremy
Corbyn’s Labour, the private sector —
particularlylargecompaniessupplying
utility services which were once pro-
vided by government — is regarded as
the enemy. Privatised strategic indus-
tries face being brought back under
statecontrol.
Carolyn Fairbairn, the director-gen-
eral of the CBI, Britain’s biggest busi-
ness lobby group, this week called on
politicians toreconnect with business.
It would be easy for detractors to dis-
miss her comments as griping by an
organisation that was stunned by the
2016 referendum result and has
warned since about the detrimental
effects of a crash out of the EU. That
wouldbewrong.Allpartiesneedtorec-
ognise that business is not the villain
butalegitimatepartofsocietythatpro-
vides employment, taxes and a route
for individuals to fulfil their aspira-
tions. There is little to be gained from
shuttingoutbusiness.
The UK economy needs the support
of global financial markets. The par-
ties’ lavish spending pledges, with both
sides promising to borrow to invest,
have already unsettled investors.
Moody’s last weeklowered he UK’st
credit outlook to negative, warning
that Brexit “paralysis” had made poli-
cymaking less predictable. The coun-
try’s high debt burden and weak pro-
ductivitygrowthremainaconcern.
A Brexit withdrawal agreement is
only the beginning of the debate about
Britain’s future trading relationship
with the EU. Uncertainty over policy
towards business in the intervening
periodwouldbedetrimentaltothecor-
poratesectorandtheUKeconomy.
Early election pledges from the main
parties have focused on obvious vote-
winners — more doctors for the NHS,
better childcare and education. Both
parties have pledged investment in
infrastructure, which is welcome to
business. But companies also want cer-
tainty on more granular issues such as
reform of business rates and the
apprenticeship levy; investment in
skills to help boost worker productiv-
ity; and a clearer focus on the services
sector, which accounts for 80 per cent
of output. A business-friendly migra-
tion policy will be crucial. A thriving
business sector will be vital for the
overall success of post-Brexit Britain. It
istimetostoptreatingitwithdisdain.The main parties ignore the role of the private sector at their peril
UK politicians must heed
the voice of business
HongKongisontheedgeofaprecipice.
Late into Tuesday evening, protesters
at several locations hurled Molotov
cocktails at police who fired back vol-
leys of tear gas. Since the weekend, a
protesterhasbeenshotbypolicewitha
live round, and a man horrifically set
alightafterconfrontingdemonstrators.
Violence that has been building for
months has reached a critical pitch.
With neither side appearing ready to
back down, the danger is now real of a
tragedyonafarbroaderscale.
Both demonstrators and police are
guilty of incidents of brutality. But
blame for the current crisis must be
laid primarily at the feet of the Hong
Kong government and Beijing. Since
the protests began in April, both have
underestimated the demonstrators’
seriousness and resolve. Concessions
havebeentoolittle,toolate.HadCarrie
Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive,
withdrawn the extradition bill that
originally triggered the demonstra-
tions when they were still peaceful
mass marches, she might have defused
thesituation.
Instead, she initially only suspended
thebillinsteadofcancellingit,andonly
after the first bloodshed. This sent pro-
testers a damaging if unintended mes-
sage: that only violence brought
results. Continued mishandling of the
crisis by the Hong Kong authorities has
led to the loss of their legitimacy in the
eyes of much of the population. In a
sign of how sentiment has shifted,
office workers in suits could be seen
cheering black-clad demonstrators in
full battle dress as they ran through the
city’s central business district on
Tuesday.
Having lost popular legitimacy, the
authorities have resorted instead to
police rule. In the absence of any politi-
cal resolution, the police find them-
selves, invidiously, on the front lines,
expected to govern what has become
an ungovernable city through force.
Since they only have one set of tools, an
inevitable cycle of escalation has set in.
The city no longer has a law and order
problem,butaruleoflawproblem.
Now there are signs that Beijing is
preparing to take an even harder line.
Protesters fear further steps to erode
therightsandfreedomsHongKonghas
enjoyed since the end of British rule in
1997, which are guaranteed in the Basic
Law that came into effect at the hando-
ver. Chinese officials havesignalleda
desire for legislative and education
reforms in the city, including strength-
ening security legislation. An article of
the Basic Law said Hong Kong should
enact laws to prohibit “treason, seces-
sion, sedition [or] subversion” against
the central government. But a move to
implement that through a national
security bill in 2003 was dropped after
halfamillionpeopleprotested.
Any attempt to introduce a national
security law now would be seen as a
final straw by demonstrators. If Beijing
intends to push through such legisla-
tion, the only way it might succeed
could be by also enacting another
unfulfilled article of the Basic Law —
which set the “ultimate aim” of choos-
ingHongKong’schiefexecutivebyuni-
versal suffrage. This has become the
biggest of the demonstrators’ five
demands.
The chances appear slim indeed.
Granting the universal suffrage
demand would risk making Beijing
appearcowedbyviolence,andsettinga
precedent for other parts of China. Yet,
balanced with an eventual commit-
ment to introduce a national security
law in Hong Kong, it could in theory
provide the framework for a visionary
compromise. It might be the only route
left to a peaceful end to the protests —
and to averting the ever-increasing
danger of a bloody military interven-
tionfromthemainland.Violence that has escalated for months has reached a critical pitch
Hong Kong authorities
have lost their legitimacy