Pro-democracy citizens of Hong Kong have taken to the streets over the past two weeks, engaging in a massive sit-in in response to a recent proposal from the National People’s Congress of China for election reform in Hong Kong. The protest movement has spawned such symbols of resistance as the umbrella (a dual purpose anti-rain/anti-tear gas tool) and the yellow ribbon, and has now reached a state of impasse – protesters now permanently occupy several arterial roads and squares, but the Chinese government has shown no signs of backing down. Sporadic violence has occurred, but the protesters have avoided violence and police have, with a few notable exceptions, kept restraint.
Background
This protest movement has a complex history. The Basic Law – the constitution set up after Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997 – states that the leader of Hong Kong, the Chief Executive, shall be chosen “by election or through consultations,” with the “ultimate aim … of universal suffrage.” Basic Law also guarantees fundamental freedoms, and the “capitalist system and way of life” in Hong Kong is to remain unchanged at least 50 years. While many citizens of Hong Kong interpreted these as promises that they would soon be able to elect their leaders, the Chinese government has yet to commit to a date when free and fair elections can be held. In their defense, the Basic Law specifies no timeline for transition to democracy, so China is not legally obligated to do so.
Hong Kong is currently run as a special administrative region (SAR) of China, with its own legal and economic system (inherited from the British colonial era) and a regional government under a Chief Executive. While largely autonomous in local affairs, the HK government has maintained close relations with the central government and discouraged public anti-Beijing movements.
Currently, there are elections for Chief Executive and legislature, but I’m using the word “election” loosely. Every adult citizen is given one vote for the legislature – however, legal persons known as “functional constituencies” (FCs), including businesses, banks, and trade unions, also have voting rights. An infamous example is HSBC, which has five subsidiaries so its CEO can vote six times (in addition to his vote as a private citizen). In elections for the Chief Executive, the FCs are the only ones given a vote – ordinary citizens have no say. The rationale for this system is that since these organizations play a vital role in the economy of Hong Kong, they should be given a greater say. Critics, however, point out that this essentially rigs the election in favor of candidates sympathetic to Beijing – as most of these organizations do business in China and have an incentive to not anger the regime. In the 2012 legislative election, pro-Beijing candidates got just 43% of the vote – but received a 61% majority of seats in the legislature anyways. The system is a de facto plutocracy.
Dramatis Personae
Over the past few years, there has been a surge of support for opposition groups. One of the most prominent is Scholarism, a high school student body, which was originally founded by student Joshua Wong in 2012 to combat Hong Kong government efforts to introduce nationalist material into the curriculum. The group received wide public support, and successfully got the HK government to scrap plans for the new curriculum.
The Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) is currently led by Alex Chow and Lester Shum. Founded in 1958, their original purpose was to represent university students in meetings with administrators, much like Feds at UWaterloo, but since the 1989 massacre of student protesters in Beijing, they have become very involved in politics, often intervening to promote democratic reforms or criticize government policies they see as misguided.
There are several political parties in Hong Kong which support democratic reform. In 2013, a coalition known as the Alliance for True Democracy (ATD) was formed by 27 legislators, and has produced several concrete proposals for a new election system for Chief Executive and legislature. Prominent members include Emily Lau of the Democratic Party, Alan Leong of the Civic Party, and the socialist “Long Hair” Leung.
In 2013, law professor Benny Tai, sociologist Chan Kin-Man, and cleric Chu Yiu-Ming released the Occupy Central Manifesto, in which they threatened to start a non-violent “occupation” movement in response to any unfavorable election reform proposal from the Chinese government.
Other groups which are on the record as supporting or sympathizing with the democratic reform movement include the Hong Kong teachers’ union and several other labour unions, the Bar Association, as well as some religious groups including the Catholic Church.
Opponents of the protest include the cabinet currently in power in Hong Kong, including Chief Executive Leung Chun-Ying and Secretary for Administration Carrie Lam. Many businesses have spoken out against the protests, including the Big Four accounting firms and the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce under Y.K. Pang. Political parties such as the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB), led by Tam Yiu-Ching, which are normally aligned with Beijing, have called for restraint on the part of the protesters. The Silent Majority, an anti-protest group led by Robert Chow, has organized a counter-protest under the slogan “Democracy without Chaos”.
It must be clarified that opponents of the protest do not necessarily disagree with the goal of democratic reform. Some just don’t think antagonizing the government is the most effective way to seek reforms, and in the case of the business community, they really just want to conduct their business without being inconvenienced by a massive sit-in. The Silent Majority, for example, does favor (or at least claim to favor) democracy, but rejects civil disobedience as a means to demand it.
Recent Developments
In late August, the National People’s Congress announced that starting in 2017, the Chief Executive would be chosen by the people through free elections. Anyone will be able to run, provided they are duly nominated by a committee picked by FCs … and wait that sort of defeats the whole purpose of elections. The opposition saw it as a middle finger extended their way.
The response was swift. In late September, HKFS and Scholarism started boycotting their classes to hold daily rallies. On September 27, police began making arrests, and Joshua Wong and Alex Chow were detained for two days. In response, Benny Tai announced that his proposed Occupy movement would begin immediately, and called for citizens to blockade the central business district to disrupt business in the area.
On the first day of the occupation, Hong Kong police fired pepper spray and later tear gas at protesters on 87 occasions in an attempt to disperse them. The tactic backfired – in fact, many people were motivated to join the protests by the police brutality. Since then, the police have showed more restraint. The umbrella became a symbol of the protesters after many were seen using one to deflect pepper spray. A separate occupation has also spawned across the harbour in Kowloon, and rallies in support of the Hong Kong protests have taken place in many other cities around the world, including one at the University of Waterloo.
Despite the large crowds of protesters, the movement has remained remarkably restrained, avoiding violence, and protesters received plaudits for clearing garbage from their areas and issuing apologies when they stepped over the line. The protest movement’s current demands are universal suffrage in the 2017 election and the resignation of Chief Executive Leung.
Despite the presence of many older adults and politicians in the protest, the student groups who originally began the protest – HKFS and Scholarism – continue to be seen as leaders of the protest movement. On October 2, Admin Secretary Carrie Lam agreed to negotiate with HKFS executives to seek a resolution. However, hopes for a quick resolution were dashed the next day, after a clash between the protesters and opponents in Kowloon turned violent. After several protesters were beaten, protest leaders issued a call for restraint and non-retaliation, but the damage was done. Amid conflicting reports that police had either stood aside while Occupy protesters were being attacked, or even joined in the violence, the Federation of Students called off the proposed negotiations.
The Future
The future of the Occupy Central movement and the student protests remains up in the air. The government has shown no signs of yielding to the protesters’ demands, and police have been implicated in anti-protester violence on multiple occasions. Mindful of the international condemnation that happened in 1989, one would expect the Hong Kong government to refrain from ordering an all-out violent dispersal. Perhaps the government is willing to ride out the protests, betting that they will disperse if they hold the line. But the protests, one week in, have not yet showed signs of abating.
If there is a positive solution, it will probably have to come through negotiation, perhaps through mediation from the business community which will suffer losses if the protests continue, or from moderate politicians. Since neither side wants to budge, a compromise will have to be found – protesters are unlikely to get the immediate universal suffrage they seek, but maybe the Chief Executive will resign and the government will concede limited reforms …and then we’ll do this again in five years. But there isn’t much time to lose – a lengthy protest increases the chances that, say, the People’s Liberation Army or triad criminal organizations (which normally support the Chinese government) will get involved, which is usually not a good sign.
In the meantime, impasse reigns: the protests will continue, the government will not budge, and students and media around the world will continue marveling at, or sympathizing with, the protesters in Hong Kong.
Leave a Reply