Majority rule is the heart and soul of democracy. The components of a democratic system: the distribution of power; equal rights; and the rule of law, depend on majority rule to function. No sensible person will dispute these fundamental concepts. But there is no guarantee these beliefs will be faithfully upheld in reality.

The ongoing filibustering against a series of funding bills tabled by the government shows that some lawmakers are actually cynical about democracy.

Of late many have voiced fears over the worsening relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government. They are right to be concerned about bad blood in the Legislative Council (LegCo). But they may have missed the point in assuming it is merely a deteriorating executive-legislative relationship. This is a symptom of the disease - not the cause. The cause is a fundamental lack of understanding of what democracy is about and what it represents.

There are those who will see the insulting behavior by opposition lawmakers toward Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and other officials as further evidence of this deteriorating relationship.

But some pro-establishment lawmakers in LegCo are also disgruntled. They have let the CE and members of his government know they are unhappy. Current delays in voting on government funding bills are not caused solely by filibustering. Some pro-establishment lawmakers have contributed to the problem by not attending LegCo - either deliberately or for other reasons.

Clearly lawmakers have to respect their voters' wishes and work on their behalf. But they can also go too far in order to please these voters. Such a mentality is unhealthy and an insult to democracy. It should be condemned and never tolerated.

People may argue that such behavior has its roots in the "proportional representation" model of democracy. In Hong Kong's case, this is a controversial arrangement during LegCo elections owing to the system of functional constituencies alongside the geographical constituencies.

Some believe the best way to dispense with this flawed system is by adopting universal suffrage. But they are only partly right about this.

The fundamental flaw in this very undemocratic arrangement is the belief that it is sometimes necessary. It is rooted in the notion that functional constituencies complement their geographical counterparts by giving people from certain professions an "equal opportunity" in representative politics - opportunities they would not necessarily have in geographical constituencies. But this clearly deviates from the principle of majority rule.

Such a self-serving mentality is common in representative democracies around the world. It has existed almost as long as representative democracy itself. Frankly it is impossible to eradicate, but this does not mean it shouldn't be restrained. The best way to achieve this is for all political parties to place equal emphasis on finding compromise in the best interests of Hong Kong. After all, politics really is the "art of compromise".

However, this system also contributes to a balance of political power and to social stability. So this justifies its existence. Moreover, abolishing functional constituencies will not stop filibustering in LegCo. This will continue as long as the opposition camp exists. Hong Kong will suffer from it until procedural loopholes in existing LegCo House Rules are closed.

Eliminating functional constituencies will not stop politicians filibustering on behalf of minority interests. One need only look at US Congress today to gain an understanding of this problem. Capitol Hill suffers from the formidable power of lobbying. This works in a similar way to Hong Kong's functional constituencies. But lobbying in the US is more politically effective and therefore also more costly. In a sense the problems there are worse than those caused by the functional constituencies in Hong Kong.

We should also be aware of the pretentiousness and futility of many things done in the name of politics but which are in fact unconstitutional. These things do not represent the wishes of the majority of people.

Neither the "Occupy Central referendum" nor the July 1 protest march reflected the wishes of a majority of people in Hong Kong. The opposition parties and their supporters were well aware of this, but pretended not to be aware.

They are now trying to convince the public that whatever harm they cause Hong Kong in future will be worthwhile. They claim this will be in accordance with "international standards" of democracy. But what they really want from the central government is more power and de-facto independence. This is also why they will fail in the months ahead: they don't have majority support.

The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 07/16/2014 page9)