Whether China honours the pledges it has given for the future of Hong Kong after the hand over next year will depend more on China's internal politics than on the warnings of the last British governor, Mr Chris Patten. His policy, since being appointed in 1992, has been a belated recognition of the democratic deficit in the colony, which he has carried out by enlarging the role of elected delegates but still falling far short of normal democratic standards.
Mr Patten's reforms were a logical continuation of changes initiated in the mid 1980s. Before that, Hong Kong was ruled as a classical colony, and what politics existed depended on small critical groups, such as the Hong Kong Observers, who attempted to goad the government into being more open and responsive to public opinion. There is, as a result, no rooted tradition of democracy, though a small and courageous group of politicians, such as the articulate Mr Martin Lee, has come on the scene who, if British rule had continued and remained committed to political reform, might have become the nucleus of a Western style democracy.
It is too late to consider that possibility, however. China's pledge to maintain Hong Kong's capitalist system for 50 years has credibility since it is in line with the mixed economic system that Beijing has been developing for the last 20 years. Hong Kong, as an invaluable link with international trade and finance, is an asset; it has grown prosperous over the years through its unique position between communism and capitalism, and it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which this role would be deliberately undermined after the hand over to China.
Mr Patten's tactics, exemplified in his final policy address to the Legislative Council last week, have been based on confrontation with Beijing rather than conciliation. This has made for difficulties in negotiating the process of transfer since he was appointed, and arguably has done nothing to improve Hong Kong's prospects after next June. His statement on a phone in radio programme a few days ago that the people of Hong Kong "can rely on Britain" to mobilise international support if China fails to deliver on its promises can hardly have impressed many listeners who remembered the failure to mobilise more than words after the massacre in Tienanmen Square.
Hong Kong's future as part of China is likely to depend more on the evolving Western policy of breaking down historical barriers and opening the door to investment and trade than on moralising from a posit ion of no power or influence. This raises the question of the motives for Mr Patten's abrasive approach. Many people in Hong Kong, particularly in the business community, fear that his interventions will have a directly opposite effect to the one he intends, by rocking the boat and provoking antagonism.
But his return to Britain in nine months' time appears providentially designed to coincide with political events there either allowing him to take a powerful position in a new Major government or, more likely, to be a leading contender to succeed Mr Major after a Tory defeat in the general election. The audience he is addressing, with his solid message of individual liberties and democracy, may not be in China but in Britain.