Since the 2014 Umbrella Revolution, Hong Kong has once again attracted widespread attention from international media and scholars around the world. Hong Kong's political future as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) under the “one country, two systems” model, particularly amid the 20th anniversary of the handover of its sovereignty from Britain to China on 1 July 1997, has been a popular topic for many media features and academic publications. In this regard, both Richard C. Bush's and Lynn T. White III's recent books are important publications contributing to the recent heated debates about the political future of Hong Kong.

Bush's book, entitled Hong Kong in the Shadow of China: Living with the Leviathan, examines the political trajectory of Hong Kong from the British colonial time to the Chinese SAR period. It is divided into thirteen chapters. The first four chapters set the scene for subsequent analysis, including a discussion of the hybrid nature of Hong Kong politics and a review of its democratic transition since the British colonial time. Chapters five and six examine the 2014–15 democratic reform and the impact of the Occupy Movement. Chapters seven to nine broaden the discussion to wider issues such as good governance, economy and competitiveness. Chapters ten to twelve discuss the political future of Hong Kong from a geo-political perspective within the broader context of interactions between Hong Kong, China, Taiwan and the United States. Chapter thirteen is the concluding section.

Similarly, Lynn T. White III's book, entitled Democratization in Hong Kong – and China? also focuses on the democratic reforms of Hong Kong. Aspiring to examine whether and to what extent established theories of democratization are applicable to the political evolution of Hong Kong, White discusses the relevance of six critical democratization factors to Hong Kong and organizes his book along these factors, namely asset redistribution, legacies, modernity, elite decisions, social protests and international norms. The concluding chapter broadens the discussion by examining the relevance of Hong Kong's democratization to that of China.

These two books are similar in terms of research methodologies and theoretical frameworks. Both Bush and White rely mainly on secondary data including existing academic publications, journalistic materials and research reports to advance their analyses and arguments. Although neither book provides extensive original empirical findings, the two authors offer meticulous interpretation and re-interpretation of Hong Kong politics within established theories of comparative democratization. In particular, Bush rightly positions Hong Kong as a case of liberal oligarchy (which can also be termed as liberal authoritarianism or constitutional oligarchy within democratization literature) and provides readers, especially non-Hong Kong readers, with a clear framework for understanding the politics of the city-state within comparative contexts. As an experienced foreign policy practitioner and analyst, Bush also provides valuable insights and observations on Hong Kong's democratization from a geo-political perspective. On the other hand, White draws extensively upon established democratization theories and concepts when advancing his arguments on Hong Kong politics. His discussions on the obstacles that hinder Hong Kong's democratization within comparative contexts such as capitalists’ fear of asset redistribution and elites’ decisions to prevent popular elections in Hong Kong are particularly impressive. All in all, these two book-length publications have made important contributions that enrich the emerging comparative discussions of Hong Kong democratization (such as journal articles by Stan Hok-wui Wong in Electoral Studies 33 [2014] and by this reviewer in Democratization 24 [2017]) and to framing Hong Kong as an important case for comparative democratization.

While I agree with Bush's and White's discussion of Hong Kong politics within comparative democratization contexts, it is equally important to point out that such a democratization perspective is far from a comprehensive framework for examining and understanding the political dynamics of the city-state. As Hongkongese over the past decades fought heavily for universal suffrage for both Chief Executive and Legislative Council elections, it is normal for political analysts to interpret the politics of Hong Kong from a democratization perspective. Nevertheless, we should never forget that Hong Kong by its very nature is an autonomous entity having quite extensive asymmetric autonomous powers (but falling short of establishing its political autonomy) under Chinese sovereignty. Hong Kong people's quest for universal suffrage is therefore not only a game of democratization but also a journey in search of political autonomy against Beijing's control. Indeed, when discussing Hong Kong politics it is important to note that a distinctive Hongkongese identity as “a unique form of nationalism” emphasizing its distinctiveness from mainland China had already been established before 1997 (as Zheng Yongnian argues in his chapter in his 2008 volume co-edited with Wang Gungwu China and the New International Order [Routledge]), and this identity has been effectively prolonged by the “one country two systems” model and the Basic Law (as described by Lau Siu-kai in his 1997 book Hongkongese or Chinese: The Problem of Identity on the Eve of Resumption of Chinese Sovereignty over Hong Kong [CUHK Press]). Therefore the conflicts between Hong Kong and Beijing are not just about struggles for democratization but also a manifestation of the clash of two nationalisms — Beijing's state-building nationalism (which is about adopting incorporation strategies for subjecting Hong Kong to greater central control over the political, economic, and ideological arenas) and Hong Kong's peripheral nationalism (which is about asserting its distinctive identity within the Chinese state and resisting against the incorporation of Beijing) (see my 2017 article “One country, two nationalisms: center-periphery relations between mainland China and Hong Kong, 1997–2016,” Modern China 43). Discussing Hong Kong politics simply from a democratization perspective will therefore omit an important (if not the most important) dimension of the politics of the city-state, making it difficult to fully capture the most recent dynamics of mainland China–Hong Kong relations ranging from political arena (e.g. controversies surrounding the White Paper on The Practice of the One Country, Two Systems Policy in the HKSAR, the use of central authorities by Beijing such as re-interpretation of the provisions of the Basic Law, the role of Central Government Liaison Office as a second governing team in Hong Kong, the growing calls for autonomy, self-determination and even outright independence) to the economic arena (e.g. controversies on mainland–Hong Kong economic integration and growing expansion of mainland capital in Hong Kong) and ideological–cultural arenas (e.g. controversies over the implementation of national education and indoctrination of a single Chinese identity in Hong Kong, the growing marginalization of Cantonese as a local language). How to integrate both democratization and nationalist perspectives into a coherent theoretical framework for interpreting Hong Kong politics remains a challenge to all scholars who are interested in this geographically tiny but politically important city-state.

All in all, Bush's and White's books are both concise accounts of Hong Kong politics from British colonial time to Chinese SAR period. Experienced researchers of Hong Kong politics will find these books illuminating, while new readers of Hong Kong politics will find them good and handy introductory texts.