Is compromise possible?

Thousands of pro-democracy protesters took to the streets of Hong Kong on Wednesday, October 1, as demonstrations spread to a new area of the city, stepping up pressure on the pro-Beijing government. The was no sign of the demonstrations losing momentum as China celebrated its 65th National Day - the anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party's foundation of the People's Republic of China in 1949. The swelling crowds have brought large sections of the Asian financial hub to a standstill, but there was no initial sign of trouble. Over the weekend riot police had used tear gas, pepper spray and baton charges to try to quell the unrest.

Tensions are running high as the protesters, upset that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has refused to meet them, have threatened to expand their demonstrations and occupy important government offices unless he resigns and the Chinese leadership agrees to broader electoral reforms. Leung, however, gave a strong indication that he would not give in to protesters' demands and that he expects the pro-democracy "Occupy Central" movement to "last for quite a long period of time." The escalation comes four months after Beijing issued a White Paper stating its "comprehensive control" over the former British colony.

Dr. Tim Pringle, a Hong Kong permanent resident and senior lecturer at SOAS University of London, says in a DW interview that the ideal solution for the current crisis is Leung to resign, clearing the way for the second round of public consultation that sticks to the original timetable for universal suffrage.

DW: What message does the sheer number of today's protests send out to HK authorities?

I think it further demonstrates that there is a huge and sustainable groundswell of support for genuine universal suffrage. It has also crystallized the options of the HK government. They can take the initiative and open the second round of consultations on universal suffrage on the basis that the selection committee is only one option. Obviously, such a course of action would require negotiations with Beijing. Or they can play a waiting game: hope that the crowds die down and gradually return the police to the streets.

Neither under Chinese rule nor during the time it was a British colony was Hong Kong a democracy. What are protesters basing their calls for universal suffrage on?

On the basis that the right to elect leaders of choice via international norms of universal suffrage is a human right – denied under British sovereignty and denied under Chinese control.

HK Chief Executive Leung is facing renewed calls for his resignation. But he has rejected their demands. What is your view on this?

The key demand remains, rightly in my view, the right to genuine universal suffrage. However, Occupy Central is made up of many different organizations with different views. Leung's resignation would demonstrate that 'people power' has worked and open up a path for an interim Chief Executive to kick-start a genuine consultation process with no options ruled out.

What effect could Leung's resignation have on the current situation?

To answer this without reservation would be speculation. I believe, however, that it would offer one way out of the impasse: Beijing would sacrifice Leung – who has hardly been a roaring success as Chief Executive – to demonstrate that they are listening. Occupy Central would also have the space to build an even wider support base for universal suffrage while keeping a symbolic occupation of central Hong Kong in place. That said, there is a risk for both sides.

The risk for Occupy Central would be a loss of momentum, although this is offset by the sophisticated and peaceful levels of organization the group and its supporters have already exhibited. The risk for Beijing is that the central government appears 'soft' – not the message it wants to send to other autonomous regions and large cities in the mainland. This risk is offset by the 'tough' reputation Beijing already has among its citizens.

Would Leung's resignation be an acceptable face-saving compromise for both sides?

It is for them to decide, of course. But, as a citizen of HK, I personally believe that it would offer a way forward.

What about Leung's argument that his removal would mean Hong Kong's next leader would be chosen by a committee, as in 2012, rather than by voters?

One way round this would be to have an interim Chief Executive to oversee the transition to democracy in 2017.

Would Beijing be willing to tolerate a longer period of unrest given the potential financial and political impact?

We don't know. This would be speculation. There has been very little comment from Beijing and the discussions of the Central Committee are never reported. What is clear is that the financial and political impact of troop deployment would be far greater than that of ongoing peaceful protests, and would be disastrous for the future of the Communist Party of China.

Are there any other ways of solving the crisis?

My personal view is that this is a crisis that has been a long time coming and that the ideal solution is for Beijing to nullify the White Paper and agree to a renewed consultation that sticks to the original timetable for universal suffrage. However, we need to look forward to what can be done and not back to what has been done.

The most important point now is that the second consultation is conducted on the basis that the people of HK have clearly expressed their wish for universal suffrage without the barrier of a candidate selection committee – and proceed accordingly.

Dr. Tim Pringle is a Hong Kong permanent resident and senior lecturer at SOAS University of London.