Hong Kong's society needs opposition parties that are constructive, not destructive. Opposition parties must set an limit to what they do. Even if some of their members cannot agree with the "One Country, Two Systems" principle, the bottom line is that any action that jeopardizes national unity and territorial integrity is punishable under the law.

Hong Kong has a relatively mature civil society. Its citizens enjoy a full range of basic rights, including freedom of expression, publication, assembly and association. It has a government committed to the rule of law and government officials are under effective public supervision. Hong Kong also boasts judicial independence that ensures the courts are free of external interference. Its citizens in general believe in the rule of law and abide by the laws and regulations. It is a good example of a cosmopolitan society.

However, because of its long colonial past, followed by a much shorter experience since the handover, Hong Kong's political ecosystem is becoming more deformed and alienating by the day. For example, our opposition parties give people the impression they must oppose everything to live up to their names. In addition to the obsession with opposing anything related to the central government, they are now fighting Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying every step of the way. As far as we can see, all they do is just to oppose. They offer nothing constructive.

There is no arguing that our society needs opposition parties and opposing views to remind the SAR government of its responsibilities, monitor its administration, elevate it toward good governance, advance social development and improve the quality of people's spiritual as well as material life.

It is widely known that political opposition (be it parties or camp) is indispensable in a mature democratic society. Opposition refers to political parties and organizations competing against the ruling party in a multi-party political system. Its main function is to criticize and monitor the ruling party's conduct while laying the foundation to become the ruling party by defeating the current ruling party in a democratic election. In the public policy making process, opposition parties' opposing views can make the government look at the bearing of policies and options from multiple angles. However, despite their daily squabbles, the ruling party and opposition parties can cooperate when they must, as with the recent consensus reached between the ruling Democratic Party and its Republican rivals in the US avoiding the "fiscal cliff". Political parties fight one another to the death in elections, but they must make sure their rivalries never harm national or public interests.

In countries practicing multi-party politics, the leading opposition party is usually the largest non-governing party, such as the UMP of France. In bipartisan countries like the US, the Republicans and Democrats duel it out for the presidency regularly. In Hong Kong, though highly improper, the Democratic Party, the Civic Party and the League of Social Democrats may be casually seen as non-governing parties. The problem is, because party politics are not yet fully formed and can even be described as still in their infancy, the small parties and organizations that form the opposition camp are too loosely organized, too scattered in their vision, too much at odds on common interests and too self-serving in elections. There is no serious competition for with pro-government party or the pro-establishment party like the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.

Opposition parties are not the same as revolutionary parties, although both seek to be the ruling party eventually. The main difference between the two is that revolutionary parties exist solely for a change of government and will do anything to achieve that change, by paralyzing and even destroying the existing political system if necessary, so that a new society can be built on the ruins of the old one. Revolution is necessary at certain historic junctures, such as the French Revolution of 1789. That said, a revolution could be so catastrophic that few people can imagine the magnitude of the destructive energy.

The smooth handover of Hong Kong to China spared the city a revolution and there is no need for a revolution today. That is why radical Legislative Councilor Leung Kwok-hung's self portrayal as a fan of Che Guevara, the late revolutionary guerilla leader, is not widely embraced. If the opposition parties are really clever, they should have little problem understanding that "revolution" is impossible in Hong Kong and they are much better off being good critics, monitoring the SAR government's performance.

Political parties are not the same as civil groups, either, because they have their own political philosophies and ultimate goals. Political leaders live and fight for the realization of their political ideals. Hong Kong's opposition parties, I have to say, show no unmistakable policy agenda, clear guideline for action or promising mobilization plan apart from a consensus on achieving direct elections of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council sooner than later. All they do nowadays is to oppose for the sake of their collective label, and grab public attention by acting like clowns or gangsters. That may prove their worth to some people for now, but will no doubt lose the public support they need to exist if they keep behaving like they do now.

The author is an associate professor at the City University of Hong Kong. This is an excerpted translation of his commentary published in Ta Kung Pao on Jan 30.

(HK Edition 02/01/2013 page1)