Radical politicians like to point to the size of last year's anti-Tung protest to justify Hong Kong's need for democracy - as an example of how badly things can go wrong if there isn't democracy.

Yet democracy has more to do with how politics is being conducted than just changing a leader. Hong Kong people deserve to have equal rights to interfere with the radical groups' way of doing things.

In reality, however, plenty of Hong Kong citizens think that the radicals have already got too much privilege to keep lecturing about what is best for citizens - while the citizens, on the other hand, can do little to influence the radicals.

Now and then, it appears harder for Hong Kong citizens to influence their radical friends than to influence the chief executive (CE) and even to send their message to Beijing.

Indeed, one of the rational things that Hong Kong should do, as shown in the experience of many countries, is to build, through development of democracy, a stronger mechanism to check the radical ambition, at least to prevent it from bothering citizens too often.

Although the present CE and LegCo are not the result of fully direct elections, Hong Kong still doesn't have its politics dominated by one single faction of politicians. It has a platform of diverse opinions, where pros and cons coexist.

Even as the issue-oriented debate gets frequently interrupted by the radicals' vehement chest-beating, slogan shouting, and mud-slinging, Hong Kong people still more or less know what those issues are.

And when politics get less confrontational in streets and Hong Kong's relations with the central government less strained, people do get sensible views on the possible solutions in occasional columns in the press.

These are the seeds of the kind of democracy that can really help. But suppose the local radicals grab the CE's post and dominate LegCo, which they now probably think they could by capitalizing on last year's mass sentiments, would the precious seeds of democracy continue to exist, if not flourish? I have serious doubts.

Look at how their propaganda mouthpieces have handled opinions. They made less criticism of their leaders' views and behaviour than the so-called pro-Tung, conservative press talked about the community's existing problems.

Look at how they have protected the interests of the organizations run by their buddies, such as some of the local unions. They are trying to make them free from the enforcement of professional requirements and any competition, while other industries and services are all faced by growing pressures in the marketplace.

Look how they have threatened local business people - by virtually accusing them of being traitors ready to sell out Hong Kong's future in exchange for investment interests on the mainland - and implicitly painting the mainland as the bigger monster behind every bad thing in Hong Kong.

Look at the disservice they have done to Hong Kong's relations with the central government - such as by calling the NPC Standing Committee's ruling on the SAR's 2007-08 elections "anti-democratic", which just repeated some of the points in the Basic Law.

And look how their leaders tried to present themselves as knowing more than anyone else does. For years, as I am told, they have never admitted mistakes or any of the things they did improperly - just like the emperors in old China.

Admittedly, many Hongkongers are unhappy after having been victims in two major business down cycles (the Asian financial crisis and a worldwide recession) and the policy flip-flops in between, and the community has lots of criticism of the government. But just as it doesn't make sense for a depressed person to put an end to his life, it won't be of any use for Hong Kong to opt for radical politics just because it is faced by a difficult dilemma.

A local tyranny will not help. And in all likelihood, it will split the community further and fail to redefine Hong Kong's role in China and in the world.

Many nations have paid dearly for tyrannical democracies and for politicians fanning up and playing with mass sentiments.

Probably, as I tend to think, waiting is a best tactic for Hong Kong at the moment. The radicals do seem to need more time to cool down, and to moderate their ambitions and habits.

(HK Edition 05/17/2004 page6)