Fragmented cityscape of Hong Kong, symbolizing governance challenges.

Hong Kong's Political Crossroads: Can Executive Authority Find Solid Ground?

Beau Callahan in Politics & Policy June 2025 • 4 min read.

"Navigating the Fragmented Terrain of Governance in Post-1997 Hong Kong"

Since Hong Kong's sovereignty transfer in 1997, the relationship between the executive and legislative branches has become a focal point of governance challenges. Over the past two decades, Hong Kong has seen three different Chief Executives (CEs), each acknowledging significant issues between the executive and legislature. Despite this recognition, the core problems remain, and some argue they have even intensified by 2017.

For years, Hong Kong's constitutional framework has been characterized by 'executive dominance,' a term that suggests an autocratic and powerful executive branch. This concept implies that the CE, much like the colonial governor before, wields considerable influence over policy-making. However, in practice, the Hong Kong executive has faced numerous hurdles, including a lack of elite cohesion, unclear institutional logic, and flawed political strategies.

This article delves into the complexities of Hong Kong's executive authority, dissecting the institutional and political factors that have shaped its trajectory. It starts with an analysis of the political structure as outlined in the Basic Law, highlighting constitutional gaps and inconsistencies that have contributed to governance problems since 1997.

The Myth of 'Executive Dominance': Unpacking the Constitutional Principle

Fragmented cityscape of Hong Kong, symbolizing governance challenges.

The notion of 'executive dominance' has often been celebrated as a cornerstone of Hong Kong's constitutional design. However, this term lacks a precise definition in political science. While some scholars use it to describe systems where the executive branch holds considerable power, such as the Westminster system, Hong Kong's structure differs significantly.

The Basic Law itself does not explicitly mention 'executive dominance,' even though mainland and Hong Kong officials have frequently asserted its presence within the mini-constitution. Key characteristics of this system include:

The Chief Executive (CE) and bureau secretaries control most of the policy-making power, with many policies not requiring legislative approval unless they involve changes to laws or new appropriations.
The CE holds a superior constitutional status compared to other government branches and is elected independently of the Legislative Council (Legco).
The executive has the power to propose legislation, and government bills receive priority on the Legco agenda (Article 72 (2)).
The CE possesses broad appointment powers, ranging from government officials and judges to members of public corporations, without Legco or judicial constraints.

This framework has colonial roots, where the Governor held dictatorial powers, appointing members to the Executive Council (Exco) and Legco. Beijing viewed this 'executive dominant' system as efficient, minimizing political struggles and party politics. The logic was integrated into the post-1997 Basic Law to ensure effective governance under the CE and bureaucratic structure. However, this approach has inherent institutional 'gaps' that are not clearly defined, impacting the executive branch and its relationship with the legislature.

Charting a Course Forward: The Imperative of Institutional Reform

Hong Kong's future governance hinges on addressing the core issues within its 'executive dominant' system. The lack of a coherent institutional logic, combined with political strategies and personal styles of leaders have made governance more difficult over the years. Without clear institutional guidelines or party machinery, the leadership and capacity of the CE to engineer a governing coalition becomes crucial, highlighting the need for strategic leadership and inclusive governance. As Hong Kong moves forward, tackling these challenges will be essential to achieving a stable and effective government.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1007/978-3-319-51373-7_2, Alternate LINK

Title: From Executive Dominance To Fragmented Authority: An Institutional And Political Analysis

Journal: Hong Kong 20 Years after the Handover

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Authors: Ngok Ma

Published: 2017-07-30

Everything You Need To Know

How has Hong Kong's governance been characterized since the 1997 handover, and what challenges has the 'executive dominance' framework faced?

Since the 1997 handover, Hong Kong's governance is defined by the 'executive dominance' framework, where the Chief Executive (CE) holds considerable power. The CE, like the colonial governor before, influences policy-making. However, this framework has faced challenges, including a lack of elite cohesion, unclear institutional logic, and flawed political strategies. The Basic Law outlines the political structure, yet constitutional gaps and inconsistencies contribute to governance problems. These gaps, combined with political strategies and leadership styles, have made governance difficult.

What does the concept of 'executive dominance' practically mean for Hong Kong, and how does it manifest in the powers of the Chief Executive?

The concept of 'executive dominance' in Hong Kong means the Chief Executive (CE) and bureau secretaries control most policy-making without needing Legislative Council (Legco) approval unless laws or appropriations change. The CE has a higher constitutional status, is elected independently of Legco, proposes legislation with priority on the Legco agenda, and appoints officials, judges, and public corporation members without Legco or judicial constraints. This system, rooted in colonial governance, aimed for efficiency by minimizing political struggles, but has created institutional gaps impacting the executive branch's relationship with the legislature.

How does The Basic Law address or not address 'executive dominance' and what implications does this have on Hong Kong's governance?

The Basic Law does not explicitly define 'executive dominance,' although officials assert its presence within Hong Kong's mini-constitution. Key characteristics include the Chief Executive's (CE) control over policy-making, superior constitutional status, power to propose legislation, and broad appointment powers. The Basic Law's silence on a precise definition has led to varying interpretations and practical challenges in governance, impacting the relationship between the executive and legislative branches.

Why is institutional reform so important for Hong Kong's future governance, and what specific aspects need to be addressed within the 'executive dominant' system?

Institutional reform is vital for Hong Kong to address core issues within its 'executive dominant' system. Clear institutional guidelines or party machinery are needed to create governing coalition. Strategic leadership and inclusive governance are essential for the Chief Executive to lead effectively. Tackling these challenges is crucial for achieving a stable and effective government. Without these reforms, Hong Kong's governance may continue to face difficulties.

What was the initial rationale behind implementing 'executive dominance' in Hong Kong, and what inherent risks are associated with this system as integrated into the Basic Law?

Hong Kong's 'executive dominance' was initially seen by Beijing as an efficient way to minimize political struggles and maintain effective governance under the Chief Executive (CE) and bureaucratic structure. This approach was integrated into the post-1997 Basic Law based on colonial-era practices. The inherent risk of this system is the creation of institutional gaps and a lack of clear definition in the Basic Law that can lead to inconsistencies and challenges in governance.