On April 13th, 2025, Hong Kong’s largest pro-democracy party, the Democratic Party, voted to begin dissolving itself. Over 90% of the party’s remaining members backed the decision. This wasn’t just the natural conclusion of a declining party, but the endgame of a years-long, slow-motion demolition of political pluralism in the region. What once was a vibrant and semi-autonomous political space has now become a controlled and silenced shell of its former self. Hong Kong, once considered a beacon of democratic possibility in the region, has now fully tilted into authoritarianism. And just like that, another domino falls.

To understand how things got this bleak, we have to rewind. Founded in 1994, the Democratic Party stood as a pillar of opposition within Hong Kong’s legislature and civil society. They weren’t radicals, they were centrists advocating for gradual reform and greater democratic participation under the “one country, two systems” model. But starting in 2020, with Beijing’s imposition of the National Security Law, Hong Kong’s limited autonomy became little more than fiction. The law was vague by design, terms like “collusion with foreign forces” and “subversion” gave authorities a blank check to arrest journalists, protestors, opposition lawmakers, and basically anyone who stepped out of line. The Democratic Party, once powerful, was now completely vulnerable.

And the dismantling wasn’t abrupt. It was surgical. First, their candidates were barred from running. Then elected officials were pressured to resign. Others were arrested. Their offices were surveilled. Their members were warned, some directly, some through the grapevine, that continuing party activities might lead to jail time. This wasn’t democracy dying overnight. It was being drained out slowly, carefully, and legally.

The situation in Hong Kong mirrors exactly what Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt describe in How Democracies Die. They warn that modern autocracies don’t typically come from coups, they come from the ballot box. They come from leaders who use the law to chip away at norms, consolidate power, and eliminate opposition. In Hong Kong’s case, Beijing didn’t have to outlaw democracy. It just made participation in it impossible (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018, p. 82).

Even more unsettling is how well this fits into Ozan Varol’s theory of “stealth authoritarianism.” This idea refers to leaders using legal tools, often the very institutions of democracy, to kill democracy. As Varol puts it, “stealth authoritarianism creates a significant discordance between appearance and reality by concealing anti-democratic practices under the mask of law” (Varol, 2015, p. 1685). That’s precisely what happened in Hong Kong. The courts were used. The laws were followed. The system, on paper, looked like it was still operating. But the outcome was already decided: the end of organized opposition.

And while all of this was happening, what did the international community do? Very little. Western governments condemned the crackdown, sure, but actual consequences? Minimal. Economic ties with China, diplomatic caution, and sheer fatigue all contributed to the collective shrug. This global inaction signals something dangerous: that dismantling democracy through legal repression, rather than outright violence, is an effective strategy that authoritarian leaders elsewhere can, and likely will, emulate.

This is bigger than just Hong Kong. It’s about the normalization of democratic erosion. When a major opposition party voluntarily disbands because operating has become impossible, that’s not democracy functioning, it’s democracy flatlining. And the psychological effect can’t be ignored either. Civil society in Hong Kong has been gutted. Activists are leaving. People are scared to speak up. The message is loud and clear: the fight is over. You lost. Keep your head down.

Joseph Schumpeter once argued that democracy isn’t about ideals, it’s about competition. It’s about giving people a choice between real alternatives through elections. But when you make it so only government-approved candidates can run, and when you hound dissenting parties out of existence, democracy becomes a hollow performance. The shell remains, but the substance is long gone (Schumpeter, 1943, p. 269).

The disbandment of the Democratic Party isn’t just a sad story, it’s a warning shot. It shows us just how easy it is to gut a democracy without ever firing a shot. As long as the laws are followed, as long as the press releases are worded carefully, the world looks away. And that’s the truly dangerous part. Because what happened in Hong Kong won’t stay in Hong Kong. It’s part of a bigger pattern, one that we need to recognize and resist before it shows up closer to home.

Works Cited

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing Group.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper & Brothers.

Varol, O. (2015). Stealth authoritarianism. Iowa Law Review, 100(4), 1676–1718.

Reuters. (2025, April 13). China warns Hong Kong’s last major opposition party to disband. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-warns-hong-kongs-last-major-opposition-party-disband-members-say-2025-04-11/

AP News. (2025, April 13). Hong Kong’s Democratic Party begins process to disband. https://apnews.com/article/b976f875d830199d929cefc6c3c0dca7