[spacehunt]

There were Legislative Council and District/Urban/Regional Council Elections even before the Joint Declaration was signed. In fact, in the final years of British administration both the LegCo and the Urban/Regional Councils were elected by universal suffrage.

Also,

> ... documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest that beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...

[anthuman]

Wasn't the "legislative" council filled with appointees and served as an advisory role to the british governor ruling over hong kong? Where is the democracy there. Also china played around with "local" elections, doesn't mean they were/are a democracy.

As for your last point, so what? Nobody is claiming china is a democracy. But neither was britain. And it's laughable that "chinese pressure" is why britain didn't allow democracy in hong kong. It's a convenient excuse that doesn't change the facts.

Britain never allowed democracy in hong kong. And it's simply absurd to claim hong kong was "free" when it was a conquered colony of britain. It's one of the ironies of history. Hong kong only became "free" and "democratic" under chinese rule.

And in the final years, the "LegCo and the Urban/Regional Councils" may have been elected but they were powerless advisors. The ruler of hong kong, the governor, who had actual power was not elected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten

Does that guy look like an "elected" and "rightful" leader of hong kong? A guy who wasn't born in hong kong and who didn't grow up in hong kong ruled hong kong by appointment, not election. It's absurd that anyone would claim hong kong was free or democratic at any point under british rule. Britain itself wasn't a democracy and it never allowed any of it's colonies, especially the non-white colonies, to become a democracy.

The truth of the matter is hong kong was never a democracy and probably will never be one. Neither the colonizing brits or the chinese were interested in hong kong being a democracy.

[spacehunt]

Of course Hong Kong is supposed to be better under Chinese rule; it's no longer a colony!

I always find it amusing when people try to compare the PRC with the oppressive colonial empires as if they're on the same level...

As for whether LegCo was powerless, look up the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. It was a bill introduced not by the government but by an elected legislator, something that will never happen under the current system. That bill has been the bane of the government ever since, even after the handover.

[wbl]

Hong Kong democracy was opposed by China. Look at the 68 riots.

[paulorlando]

Your point that Hong Kong democracy was opposed by China is a piece of history that few know. Britain wanted to introduce self-governance in the 1950s/60s but China deemed that to be a hostile act. Details: https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...

[anoncake]

> Britain itself wasn't a democracy and it never allowed any of it's colonies, especially the non-white colonies, to become a democracy.

Britain does have its deficits, but by 1997 it certainly qualified as democratic by the usual standards. So do multiple of its former colonies.

> Hong kong only became "free" and "democratic" under chinese rule.

Under the rule of the PRC? Do you really believe that?