What happened in Hong Kong last week filled the headlines of many media outlets around the globe. The global financial hub garnered international attention with pro-democracy college students who took to the street to protest the Chinese government’s failing promise of giving universal suffrage to Hong Kong citizens by 2017.

In 1984, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping negotiated with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher about the future of Hong Kong. In the meeting, Xiaoping proposed a formula that would guarantee the smooth handover of the territory from Britain to China, allowing the British colony to retain a high degree of autonomy, freedom and civil rights still unavailable in Mainland China. The formula was later referred as the “one country, two systems” within the Basic Law. Hong Kong would not be completely transferred for another 13 years.

Hong Kong’s constitution written under Xiaoping’s formula explicitly states, “the selection of Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee.” But a few weeks ago, China’s legislature decided to rule out any chance that citizens might have the right to nominate candidates for chief executive, insisting that candidates for chief executive must gain majority support of the nominating committee, controlled by powerful businesspeople allied with Beijing.

This was the main decision that triggered last week’s massive protests and the “Occupy Central” campaign, paralyzing the financial center for more than a week. Despite the tense standoff between the government and demonstrators, there is little hope that Beijing will change its mind on its decision to limit the scope of future elections.

Since 1997, when Hong Kong returned to China, many foreign affair pundits predicted that the Chinese Communist Party would either reform its political system or die. Unfortunately, they are overly optimistic and underestimate the authoritarian nature of the regime. Though the Chinese and British governments signed a document binding China’s obligation to Hong Kong, it is not surprising that China’s current leaders have not honor their predecessors’ commitment to Hong Kong.

The reason lies within the nature of China’s political system. Without a powerful legislative body, executive officials usually ignore and do not respect laws. Instead, rulers issue decrees, which appear arbitrary and inconsistent. Once these leaders retire or die, those decrees are not likely to be implemented by their successors. Instead, successors issue new decrees that might sharply contrast with the previous leaders’. Xiaoping was once intimidating and respectful, but his legacy has faded with time. Even if he intended to let the people of Hong Kong have the right to elect the chief executive, his vision did not pass down to the new generation because Chinese leaders are not constrained by law.

In 2012, Beijing intended to impose a tougher suffrage policy on Hong Kong out of fear that the spirit of public elections would spread to other areas of China, threatening its control. Beijing issued a white paper that demanded all Hong Kong administrators, including all levels of judges and judicial personnel, to meet the political requirement of “loving the country.” It also attempted to establish patriotism and nationalism classes.

That aggressive statement sparked a march organized by Hong Kong judges and lawyers defending their rights. The white paper was largely interpreted as Beijing’s intention to step over Hong Kong’s judicial independence, a tradition established by the British. The resulting protests struck down the mandatory changes in the curriculum but tensions regarding voter’s rights remain.

“The most disturbing consequence of the white paper and its judicial patriotism error—if uncorrected—is that, in the future, all judges in Hong Kong will be exposed or suspected to be exposed to the pressure of alleged judicial patriotism,” William Waung, a retired High Court Judge, said in a public statement.

All these ominous signs cloud Hong Kong’s future that is supposed to be fulfilled under Xioaping’s Basic Law. Hong Kong is clearly ready for democracy, but the potential result of opening general elections is too risky for Beijing to accept.