Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

How to implement universal suffrage in Hong Kong seems to have reached an impasse. The central government, according to law, insists the chief executive be nominated by a broadly representative nominating committee, while the pan-democracy camp of Hong Kong upholds public nomination, claiming that's the bottom line for real suffrage.

Basically two problems are reflected in the current deadlock. First, the pan-democracy camp has flung down the gauntlet to the central government over its dominant role in Hong Kong's political development. This is quite unwise.

Second, controversies have been stirred on what kind of principles should be adopted to implement universal suffrage. 

The aim of the "one country, two systems" policy is to realize and maintain national unity. Considering the overall differences between the mainland and Hong Kong, the central government permitted Hong Kong to have a high degree of autonomy and preserve its capitalist system and way of life unchanged for 50 years.

"One country" is the basis of "two systems" in the logic. The central government won't interfere in the inner affairs of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) under the principle of "one country, two systems," nor will the HKSAR government do the same to the central government. The foundation of adjusting such a relationship is the Basic Law.

However, given such an arrangement, which contains a highly centralized state government but allows a high degree of autonomy in some regions, it's natural that varied interpretations on the relationship between the central government and the special administrative regional authorities have emerged.

A certain number of Hongkongers, the majority of whom are pan-democrats, believe that universal suffrage belongs to the internal affairs of Hong Kong and the central government shouldn't butt in.

Nonetheless, a high degree of autonomy granted under the systematic arrangement of "one country, two systems" doesn't mean Hong Kong, which is a part of China, is free from political accountability. Hong Kong's chief executive should be assured to be responsible to and loyal to the central government.

Despite an generally amicable relationship between the mainland and Hong Kong for 16 years after Hong Kong's return, some still struggle to disturb social harmony.

Some elites in the pan-democracy camp took advantage of Hong Kong's relatively free environment, bluntly declaring the central government as their rival.

Besides, they are supported by some external forces with ulterior motives that have trumpeted that nearly 90 percent of Hongkongers long for independence. How can the central government not be highly alert to such a situation?

Debates on the basis of the implementation of the universal suffrage are candidly a test to the principle of rule of law.

In a contemporary Hong Kong society ruled by law, the best solution to solve problems is to resort to the Basic Law and relevant regulations by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

Issues concerning relations between the central government and special administrative regional authorities, degree of autonomy, as well as coordination between social development and democratic political development, are all entangled in Hong Kong's political reform.

Hong Kong as a part of China is not an independent political entity. If the implementation of the universal suffrage isn't based on Hong Kong's constitutional document, the Basic Law, and regulations by the highest organ of state power, it will be a violation of national sovereignty.

The firm resolution of the central government and the strong desire of the Hong Kong public are the driving forces for realizing universal suffrage. But at present, fierce debates on the procedures of the suffrage seem to show some uncertainty, which makes rational attitude, thinking and actions in dire need.

The author is deputy director of the Contemporary Chinese Politics Research Institute at Shenzhen University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn