Editor's note: Keith Lamb is a University of Oxford graduate with an MSc degree in Contemporary Chinese Studies. His primary research interests are China's international relations and "socialism with Chinese characteristics." The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

At the end of World War II, the British Labour Party, backed by organized labor, was voted into power. They built the fundamental basis of socialism albeit within the framework of capitalism. In response, liberal transnational capital fought back and gave birth to their anti-democratic and anti-socialist ideology of neoliberalism.

With the help of the PR industry and think-tanks, civil society was captured by this force. The mass promulgation of neoliberal ideology convinced Britons of the merits of extreme privatization and the roll-back of their socialist gains. Organized labor was neutered as industry moved abroad and Britain became a country of financial money managers.

It wasn't just transnational capital that worked against the democratic interests of the masses. The U.S., through its intelligence agencies, sought to transform the Labour Party, from within, which led to the birth of the New-Labour who became willing participants in the neoliberal plunder of Iraq.

The truth is that the liberal democracy system favors the narrow interests of transnational capital which is well organized and possesses the inordinate power of capital itself. Their mass-media manipulates public perception and buys political parties leading to counterfeit elections.

The interests of transnational capital by definition do not, and cannot, represent the broader interests of society. The tragedy of Britain's Labour Party engaging in neocolonial wars proves more than this, as does the neoliberal Washington consensus which has brought ruin to the global south.

What then of Hong Kong which is itself a product of Britain's liberal empire, the forerunner of neoliberalism? After all, Hong Kong also has a liberal form which is used too often to cement global inequities forged from an imperialist past. On one hand, Hong Kong's system allows for a convenient entry point for foreign capital into the huge China market. In addition, Hong Kong's history of colonialism can't be denied and so its differing governing system to Chinese mainland is justified.

On the other hand, Hong Kong's open political system has been leveraged by private capital and foreign powers. These powers ultimately, through hook and crook, seek to bring down China's governing system which unlike Britain's sterilized Labour Party, works towards the goal of developing China towards a socialist future.

Perversely, Hong Kong's systemic problems that have arisen from the neoliberal form itself, such as entrenched inequality, have been used as the foundation to oppose Beijing. For example, capitalists, such as Jimmy Lai, who have worked hand in glove with foreign interests, have campaigned through their media outlets to oppose Beijing. The UK and the U.S. have both cheered on the chaos in Hong Kong and the U.S. has even been found to be actively funding "the protesters". All this has been done under the guise of democracy.

The lessons from Britain and more recently from Hong Kong are evident. If Hong Kong is not to be captured by the undemocratic forces of neoliberal capital then it must work within the framework of "One Country, Two Systems", where the primary emphasis is on "One Country."

Within this system, Hong Kong is obliged to work within the constitution of the People's Republic of China. As such, Hong Kong under Article 28 of the constitution has the duty to protect China's socialist system and curb treasonable activity that seeks to endanger state security. Of course, simultaneously, Hong Kong has the right to work within its own special administrative region (SAR) enacted by Article 31 of the constitution by the National People's Congress.

Consequently, Hong Kong's democratic system, even if it is influenced by a history of Western liberalism, cannot be a carbon copy of a Western system. Firstly, this is because the class interests that dominate liberal societies are undemocratic. Secondly, these class interests are overwhelmingly backed by foreign powers who do not have Hong Kong SAR's or China's central government's long-term sovereign interests at heart. Thirdly, the basis of China's constitution prohibits forces that seek to undermine China's overarching socialist system.

With this in mind, I have to agree with the recent recommendations given by Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, who believes in the implementation of the principle of "patriots running Hong Kong".

By patriots, he means those who respect the fundamental system of "One Country, Two Systems", which is an important part of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Under this system, the Hong Kong SAR is an inseparable part of the People's Republic of China and those who work to undermine this fact, and those who seek to undermine the leadership of the central government, cannot be considered patriots. In addition, Xia believes patriots must work to maintain the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.

The principle of patriots governing Hong Kong doesn't mean an end to plurality within this SAR. Rather, it means the protection of Hong Kong from being dominated by the unipolar class interests of neoliberal capital and untoward foreign interference which has led to the destruction of true developmental democracy both in the UK, Hong Kong's former colonial master, as well as the UK's former colonies in the global south.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)