Earlier this week, the public was somewhat shocked by the news that two candidate lists for the Legislative Assembly elections (direct suffrage) were disqualified after the State Security Defense Commission issued opinions indicating non-compliance with one or more of the seven eligibility criteria — established during last year’s legislative revision.
The issue is that the information leading to the decision is considered “highly confidential,” and its disclosure would pose “a risk to national security,” according to CAEAL president Seng Ioi Man. Therefore, the public will not know why these lists were deemed unpatriotic.
Without any clear reasoning behind the processes and no possibility of appealing the decision, we go into an election with only six candidate lists — a negative record in terms of the plurality of a system whose main purpose is to oversee legislative production and defend the people’s interests.
The Legislative Assembly consists of 33 members: 14 directly elected by the public, 12 indirectly elected (by associations and business interests), and 7 appointed by the Chief Executive. This institutional design already reflects a deeply imbalanced model, in which the interests of the Executive and the business sector tend to prevail.
I am not debating the legitimacy of the decision, because there is — and will be — insufficient information to do so. What we do know is that institutional legality is being used in a way that erodes civic participation. Voters cast their ballots, but technically they do not decide. As such, the new Legislative Assembly is born amputated from its essential function: to represent the population in all its diversity, not merely in its convenience.
It effectively becomes a rubber-stamp body for pre-made decisions. The legislative chamber loses substance, debate becomes impoverished, and oversight of the Executive becomes, in practice, nonexistent. Xia Baolong had already forecast changes when he said that the separation of powers in Macau did not function the same way as in the West — implying that the Legislative Assembly must submit to the interests of the Executive. Soon, it will be difficult to distinguish the Assembly from a support office — if that distinction still exists at all.
I hope that the decision, made in the name of “stability” and “harmony,” is not ultimately aimed at transforming local politics into a barren desert, where only imposed consensus can grow; that patriotism is not being confused with obedience; and that diversity of opinion is not being treated as a threat — because it is, in fact, a safeguard against error.
