Paranoid historians believe that there is a secret plot behind everything that happens and realist ones think that most large events are the result of a cock-up somewhere.

The remarkable?and very encouraging?events in Hongkong over the past two weeks are a powerful argument for the Cock-Up Theory. It is not clear why Hongkong's Chief Executive, Tung Chee-Wha, chose this July to enact a draconian new law on sedition. The Basic Law that has served as a kind of constitution since Hongkong reverted to Chinese rule in 1997 requires the passing of a security law eventually. But under the 'One Country, Two Systems' deal that guaranteed civil rights and limited democracy there, the authorities in Beijing left both the details and the timing of those laws to the former British colony?s lawmakers.

Maybe some people in Beijing suggested that Tung should get a move on with an anti-subversion law, but there is no evidence that the orders came from the top, or that Beijing wrote the harsh clauses that horrified most people in Hongkong. It's more likely to be the old story of the over-zealous subordinate trying too hard to please the master, making a mess of it. Anyway, Tung brought in the law, and the people of Hongkong basically threw it out. Hongkongers have traditionally been seen as people who don't care about politics so long as they can go on making money, but this month, in a stifling heat, half a million of them came out on the streets in a massive demonstration. The sheer number of people astonished everybody, including the organisers. It was the biggest demo anywhere in China since the Communist regime nearly lost power during the pro-democracy demonstrations on Tienanmen Square in Beijing in 1989, and it changed everything. The opposition leaders were not impressed by the token concessions that Tung offered, but he insisted that his anti-subversion bill would still go before the Legislative Council this week. So the pro-democracy movement in Hongkong promised bigger demonstrations?and meanwhile, up in Beijing, however, surprise and confusion was rapidly turning to worry. What if the demos get out of hand in Hongkong, which still earns much of China's foreign-exchange? What if they spread to China itself, where popular grievances are far bigger and the government has even less legitimacy in the public's eyes? What has that fool Tung set loose? Soon Hongkong businessman James Tien, an ally of Tung's, was flying back from a visit to Beijing with some important news.

Two senior Chinese officials had told him, Tien said, that Hongkong was free to decide the timing and the content of the security legislation on its own. In these circumstances his Liberal Party could not support Tung's law now. Without the votes of the Liberals (not elected politicians, but a group chosen by the business community who normally put 'stability' and good relations with Beijing first), Tung had no chance of getting his law through, so he deferred it indefinitely. Beijing will probably replace Tung in a few months' time and no new attack on civil rights in Hongkong is likely to happen soon. Good. But Beijing's placatory response to this crisis tells us that the new 'fourth generation' of leaders who took over most senior positions in November understand what thin ice they are skating on. It is in nobody's interest that they fall in. What China and the rest of the world needs is a recognition by the 'Communist' leadership that the country must have gradual democratisation if it is not to have a political explosion whenever triggered by a serious economic downturn. President Hu Jintao and the men around him are not going to hand over power any time soon, but they understand enough not to pour fuel on the flames. They will back up, compromise, make deals, anything that keeps the show on the road a little longer?and maybe that will win enough time for real political chan-ges to start happening.

Gwynne Dyer