PERSPECTIVE ON HONG KONG : Bejing Is Beset by Panes : As takeover looms, voters back a party led by a human- rights activist China holds subversive.

Hong Kong went to the polls on Sunday for the freest election the colony has ever known. The vote, and its likely fallout, will make it hard for the world to go on regarding events in Hong Kong as an insignificant sideshow in the main debate over human rights in China.

Electoral reform was the cornerstone of British Gov. Chris Patten’s effort to leave behind some democratic legacy when China restores sovereign control on July 1, 1997. The big winner in Sunday’s vote was the Democratic Party, led by the barrister Martin Lee, an outspoken advocate of human rights. Beijing dislikes both men with equal rancor. It calls Patten a “criminal” and brands Lee a “subversive.”

The Chinese authorities were incensed when Patten announced his plan to open 20 of the 60 seats in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (Legeo) to direct election, and to expand the franchise of the 30 “functional constituencies” representing the professions and other sectors of the population.

“Things used to work fine here,” I was told by a member of the Preliminary Working Committee, set up by China as a shadow government. “Take the functional constituency of the banks, for example. The bankers used to get together and choose their representative. It was all very smooth. But now Patten wants to involve the bank tellers in the process. He even wants to give the vote to the workers who sweep the bank floors!” So much for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Patten used to be fond of describing initiatives such as his electoral reform package as “panes of glass.” The Chinese may smash them later, he would argue--and indeed, they have repeatedly vowed to dissolve the new legislature in 1997--but it will be costly for them to do so in full public view. The governor’s bold language grew muted, however, as 1997 approached.

On one side, Patten faced discontent from the business world. The quiet pursuit of wealth, they muttered, would be put at risk if Beijing’s anger was roused with belated talk of democracy. On the other side, Patten had to contend with Beijing itself. As 1997 drew closer, and the deathwatch over Deng Xiaoping grew more protracted, the Chinese leadership increasingly viewed the British in Hong Kong as part of a hostile foreign conspiracy.

The Chinese penchant for political hardball has been on view on many fronts recently. They took a stand with Patten over what might appear an arcane issue--Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal, which would replace the colonial-era Privy Council in London as the territory’s highest court.

In June, Patten flinched. He gave the Chinese everything they had demanded--postponement of the court until 1997; a limit on the number of foreign judges from common-law systems to one out of five, and expanded jurisdiction over “acts of state such as defense and foreign affairs.” The deal over the Court of Final Appeal, by demonstrating the practical consequences of a strategy of accommodation with such a powerful and inflexible adversary, marked a watershed in relations between Patten and barrister Lee, who condemned the governor for “betraying” the rule of law.

In the wake of Sunday’s election, the Chinese posture toward Hong Kong will only harden. At one level, this reflects the anxious mood, verging on paranoia, in Beijing. At another, it reflects the new realities in Hong Kong itself. While Lee’s vigorous human rights agenda will now set the tone for the new legislature, the big loser in Sunday’s vote was the pro-China Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, which had depicted itself as the kinder, gentler face of Beijing.

In all probability, the coming battle will not be fought--at least not yet--in the streets. Beijing’s approach will be to intensify verbal hostilities and to ratchet up the pressure on those it deems sensitive to threats and reprisals. The Hong Kong press has already felt these strong-arm tactics; so have commercial interests competing for Chinese contracts. Those fighting to preserve the rule of law are likely to be next. The issues at stake may include the repeal or amendment of repressive laws from the colonial period, which Beijing would love to retain; the preservation and enforcement of Hong Kong’s Bill of Rights, introduced by Britain in 1991, and the right of independent human rights groups (viewed by China as “foreign agents”) to operate freely.

The battle will not be one for faint hearts. It is sure to involve further confrontation with China, of the sort the United States would love to avoid. Gratuitous name-calling, certainly, will not advance anyone’s interests. But the message from last Sunday’s vote needs to be amplified around the world. Hong Kong democrats need more “panes of glass” to be built quickly. The alternative may be to acquiesce in the suffocation of the democratic impulse, so impressively registered in last Sunday’s vote.