OPINION
10/16/2014 @ 5:50PM |754 views
Is Hong Kong Setting The Example That Democracy Is Possible Everywhere?
GUEST POST WRITTEN BYYvonne ChiuMs. Chiu is an assistant professor of politics & public administration at the University of Hong Kong.
Even as I was choking down the tear gas, it wasn’t difficult to notice how oddly calm all the protesters were. I had just spent six hours doing what I now call the Protest Triathlon: back away, wash off tear gas, retrench—and repeat. In between 87 rounds of coughing, tears, burning skin and panic, I witnessed spontaneous order emerge in the midst of the fumes: A first aid station was set up, people delivered supplies, others picked up discarded water bottles, tissues and plastic wrapping in an effort to keep the area clean. Even I wandered the crowd handing out paper masks and saran wrap. Later, walking down the main thoroughfare, I found myself nose-to-nose (save for the riot shield pressed against my cheek) with a rear flank of riot police hoping to surprise and surround protesters. We met them with our hands up; they pushed us back. Even after we retreated, giving them ample space—which is exactly what they were shouting for us to do—they tear-gassed us. The already furious crowd exploded in anger, yet was still controlled—yelling, but never threatening. The protesters’ sense of calm seemed surreal, but fortunately for me, I took my cues from them.
At this point, the endgame of the Hong Kong protests is still unclear. Things are heating up with organized physical attacks by counter-groups while police have largely stood by despite their earlier eagerness to use force against the students. Perhaps the protesters will fail in their bid for universal suffrage in 2017, or perhaps the outcome will be even worse. Regardless of what happens, how the protesters have comported themselves in what is being called Occupy Central (among other names) is a direct response to the pervasive rhetoric in Asia that Hong Kong (and others) is not ready for democracy because it will only lead to chaos and economic ruin. This is the main argument for withholding genuine universal suffrage in Hong Kong. Yet, the protesters have exercised incredible self-discipline and governance that shows deep political maturity. They are clearly not just students looking for an excuse to not go to school.
A Different Kind Of Protest
What protesters gather in the tens of thousands for going on three weeks and do not loot so much as a single bottle of water? Or gather their trash in between rounds of tear-gas? Even in 32°C temperatures, stifling humidity and extended periods of boredom, all of which can easily cause tempers to flare, nearly everyone is well-behaved. The world has seen amazing reports of students doing their homework at the protests as well as an enormous outpouring of voluntarism from the masses, donating their time, money and resources (even haircuts). It is also probably the cleanest protest in the world: People regularly clean the streets at night when the protests are at their peak and each morning after the crowds have dwindled. And they do not just throw out the trash—they sort the recycling, sometimes even separating the caps from their plastic bottles.
Despite a deep sense of betrayal by the police, protesters have offered officers food, water and cooling pads. Students have washed away the rare graffiti that says, “F*** the police,” and even held their own umbrellas over law enforcement officials during downpours, leaving themselves covered by thin ponchos and mostly exposed to the rain. Spontaneous, hand-written notes by young people cover stranded buses, walls and barricades, apologizing for the inconvenience of the protests to everyone else. In response to the Chief Executive’s complaint on September 30 that the occupations were hindering emergency services, the student leaders declared that afternoon they would establish “humanitarian corridors” to allow emergency vehicles through. They even followed up by establishing a staff to do so.
The protesters govern and police themselves in more sophisticated ways, too. They’ve established first aid, food and water stations, as well as open mics, allowing people to take turns making speeches on topics ranging from civil disobedience to mobile phone security against spyware; some areas set two-minute time limits.
Recognizing growing numbers at the protest sites, one of the student groups (HKFS) recently called for more patrol volunteers to work regular shifts to maintain public safety, control crowds but “not in a commanding way,” defuse any conflicts with anti-protesters, and help let emergency vehicles through. Organizers send messages reminding people that this is not a “carnival,” but rather a serious protest. They have urged self-restraint against police and public provocation, constantly emphasizing the principle of non-violence
The people have largely obeyed, even in the face of repeated tear gas attacks and more recently, organized physical and sexual assaults in Mong Kok on October 3 and 4, despite police inaction there. They restrained fellow protesters from disrupting the National Day flag raising ceremony (October 1), from attacking police openly carrying rubber bullets and tear gas into their cordons, and from shutting down one of the major roads between Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. In one incident when protesters screamed at a marshal, “You’re just protecting the people who tear-gassed us!,” he countered that he was not protecting the police but rather protecting the movement. Their reasoning shows their political acumen.
An Obvious Political Engagement
And in the midst of all this, Hong Kongers’ political engagement is obvious. People of all ages have joined and taken their fair share of pepper spray and tear gas, including the middle-aged and the elderly, from all walks of life. In the midst of a sometimes more festive atmosphere, they hold serious political discussions—about universal suffrage, democracy, representation, Hong Kong’s relationship with China, international economics, etc.
It is not paradise out there, by any means. There is plenty of dissension, flaring tempers and arguments between different groups of protesters about tactics and politics. There is palpable tension in the air as protesters constantly face off against police and now, organized thugs. The downside to this kind of egalitarian civil democracy is also apparent: The dispersed leadership often works at cross-purposes and the movement has difficulty coordinating strategies. This structure often loses out to more hierarchical ones in the short run, and in Hong Kong, we are seeing it prevent the main protest groups’ leaders from bargaining effectively with the government. On the whole, however, this is outweighed by the things that make the nature of these protests so special and admirable. People all over the world who have seen the demonstrations first-hand have been commenting that if it happened in their city, it would be madness—chaos, looting, violence—and there is ample evidence of what is perhaps a universal tendency. Except here in Hong Kong, right now.
Not Just A Novelty
So what does it reveal? The protesters’ behavior is not just a novelty to be marveled at—although it certainly deserves that—and it is not just another example of Asians obeying the rules. It shows that the people of Hong Kong possess all the traits that you would want and need for a mature democracy.
They are obedient, a necessary trait for patient industry which disciplines the mind into habits required by civilized society. Both virtues are necessary in any society, but for a democratic one, citizens also need intelligence, prudence and self-control—which the protestors demonstrate in spades. These values deny the demagogue (an especially dangerous threat to a democracy) his foothold. They possess a willingness to resist tyranny, a counterpoint to obedience. Citizens must be as resistant to usurpers and to arbitrary rule as they are conformable to lawful governance—that tension is healthy for democracy. And, the protestors have a strong sense of nationalism which drives them to take into account larger, common interests instead of just local ones. Only a subject whose mind has been expanded in this way is fit for democracy, as it requires deliberation and decision-making about matters of more than parochial interest. Right or wrong, the protesters are willing to make enormous personal sacrifices in the interest of long-term gains for the entire population.
Further, the protesters are showing that a different kind of democratic discourse is possible. At a time when many in the West bemoan the lack of civility in their own democratic political systems and the disorder and violence of their own protesters, Hong Kong is showing the “more mature” Western democracies how it can be done without sacrificing your voice—more civility confers more legitimacy. And that only enhances your voice.
The protesters also put the lie to the pervasive and pernicious claims that: (1) some people might not be ready for democracy, and (2) democracy, either too soon or at all, leads to chaos and economic failure (ie. India and Brazil).The rhetoric here is disturbingly paternalistic and ironically colonial in its claims.
The East’s Old-School Values
The East’s Old-School Values
Back in 1994, Lee Kuan Yew said to ForeignAffairs, “In the East the main object is to have a well-ordered society so that everybody can have maximum enjoyment of his freedoms. This freedom can only exist in an ordered state.” Conveniently for the state, those freedoms consist mainly of economic ones, while political rights are curtailed in the name of “order.” The belief is that political rights are irrelevant and those who do not believe so have been corrupted by the West where “the idea of the inviolability of the individual has been turned into dogma.” Although this “Asian values” school of thought (prominent in the 1990s) has officially fallen out of favor, it still resonates strongly, and most dangerously, amongst Asians themselves. It is a theme that has been picked up by the Chinese in their criticisms of Hong Kongers who agitate for democracy—they have been corrupted under the long occupation by the British.
As mentioned before, a corresponding belief is that democracy, when implemented either too soon or at all, leads to chaos. This is the Chinese Communist Party’s official propaganda on Taiwan, that the elections there are the source of anarchy and incivility. It is the constant refrain that in China, governing 1.4 billion people is impossible without authoritarian constraints—giving them voice would lead to the country’s downfall. As evidence, they point out the upwards of 8% average growth for the better part of the past two decades.
Of course, they say, the reason democracy leads to chaos is because the people are immature. Before the student strikes began on September 22, it was commonly heard around Hong Kong that students should not be allowed to do so. Why? Because they couldn’t think for themselves and are easily seduced and manipulated by nefarious forces seeking to use them for their own purposes. Yet, not only have the students taken over the leadership of this movement from the adults of Occupy Central with Love and Peace, but they are running the most disciplined mass protest movement perhaps in history.
Still, the condescending rhetoric continues. At the National Day celebration, on the third day of the widespread yet orderly and peaceful street occupation, a former LegCo member, Kaizer Lau, said: “Both sides need to calm down first because currently it’s all about emotions. People are getting very emotional. There’s no point in trying to get people away in a short time. I think you have to allow them to release their emotions for a while, until they come to sense” (Pearl TV). The composed scenes outside that interview speak for themselves.
A Bitter Divide
The entire city is deeply and bitterly divided over these protests, and much of the discussion invokes parental or familial analogies, characterizing Hong Kong or the protesters as a child rebelling against his parent. When speaking with many of my Western-educated friends, they regularly make this argument: “Hong Kong people are so spoiled. It’s like, the father has nine children: He only gave wheelbarrows to all the others but, he gave you a Ferrari and you’re still ungrateful. You still want more,” or “I believe the intention, like a father, is to still do good despite a child that keeps throwing tantrums.” This is repeated on the mainland, for example by a visitor who said that China was like a mother, and that her children (including Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau) could make their unhappiness known to her, but not in a way that disrupted others’ lives (SCMP). Or a supposed open letter published in the state-run Global Times, from a Shenzhen high school student exhorting his Hong Kong counterparts to return to their classrooms, “Whatever political system we are living in, the most important politics for us as students is to study hard…As students we have very limited understanding about politics…It’s easy for us to be instigated by slogans when we are young” (SCMP).
The pervasive use of the familial analogy assumes that there should never be a relationship of equal citizenship between ruler and ruled. Perhaps what is most disturbing about all of this is how reminiscent this is of colonial language that has been used all over the world, including in Hong Kong. It was the argument for not freeing African holdings and it was used by the British here to justify their continued rule when they used deadly force to suppress the 1960s labor riots. Back then, the British claimed that they were merely safeguarding law and order, and that most Hong Kongers wanted was simply economic stability above all else.
That reputation persists in contemporary Hong Kong. On CNN, Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Media, said “To a lot of people, this city is so poor, that we’re only left with money. We can’t have a conscience; we can’t have a spirit for justice.” This is something that lots of Hong Kongers actually embrace about themselves. Many people have said to me, “Who cares about universal suffrage? What the protesters want is so idealistic. Things have gotten better—Hong Kong has gotten so much richer under China—and that’s what really matters. They’re just disrupting the economy.” This is widely echoed by the average worker and public figures alike. This is a familiar argument, used by the CCP to justify withholding universal suffrage in China and Hong Kong, and now, in Hong Kong, we are parroting them and using it against ourselves.
How Will It End?
This movement may still fail, but in the past weeks, the Hong Kong people are proving naysayers wrong and surprising even themselves. One student, on the intense disagreements with other protesters, said “I just met those guys, but I know them better now. We have different ideas, but we’re finding a way to accept each other. Democracy isn’t just about voting for our next leader. It’s about seeing the equality of others. We’re trying to understand each other, and in that process, we’re coming to understand ourselves” (CNN).
It’s an important moment of civic awakening in Hong Kong, for both the people and those who doubt that democracy is possible everywhere. The protesters are showing what equal citizens can do and how they can treat each other. Hong Kongers are not colonial subjects in any sense. They already govern themselves in a way that perhaps improves upon the practices of the originators of democracy. Their government should be put on notice.
Of course, economic stability and prosperity are extremely important, especially here in Hong Kong. If considered on its own, Hong Kong would qualify as the most unequal country in the world and it is especially difficult for most people to live the good life without adequate material well-being in an intensely urban place. But if that is all that we can aspire to, especially for those of us who are fortunate enough to be materially well-off, then we really are nothing but colonial subjects.
A few days ago, former LegCo member Elsie Tu warned that pursuit of “Western style democracy” would lead to a new colonialism under U.S. economic control, resulting in poverty (SCMP). It is not, however, Western-style democracy the protesters are after—they are demonstrating their own take on democracy, one that the West could learn from. And the very real and serious threat of colonialism they face, if they do not succeed against this attempted erosion of “one country, two systems,” comes not from abroad but rather from within.
