Hong Kong Protestors Don't Want Revolution...Just Democracy
Last weekend, the student protestors in Hong Kong posted a letter on their organization's Facebook page directed to Chinese President Xi Jingping: they don't want a revolution; what they want is democracy. The Chinese government wants the protestors off the streets. So the face off continues.
When the British turned over the reigns of government to Beijing in 1997, Hong Kong would retain a separate arrangement that would permit the city to continue to operate in a kind of semi-independent way: one country, two sets of rules. But apparently Beijing prefers just one set of rules and their preferences don't coincide with the student protesters' preferred set. Interestingly, Britain retained a roll in the 1997 agreement that called for it to somehow "monitor" the situation to assure that the separate treatment of Hong Kong continued as originally planned. While the British ex-Governor of Hong Kong has called on the UK to fulfill its ordained role, you have to wonder exactly what the London government would do if it found Beijing's actions against the spirit of the 1997 agreement. One suspects verbal protest would be the limit of the response. But perhaps ex-Governor Chris Patten feels that's better than just going along with what's going on.
The dark shadow lurking behind current events must be the Tiananmen Square massacre of students by the Chinese government in 1989. Beijing's true nature fully manifested itself that day, and for all intents and purposes, that nature hasn't changed in the ensuing 25 years. It's a communist government founded on the principle of all power to the Party. Protests that cross a certain line simply aren't tolerated, and there's no real recourse to rule of law when that line is crossed.
We hope things don't get to that point. But we might remind ourselves that "Communist China" - while we hardly hear that term hardly used anymore - remains the apt description of the Beijing gang that rules that vast country. With all the talk about the future belonging to China, the Hong Kong protests remind us that, if that's the case, a future that includes the ascendancy of those Communists who hold the reigns of power in China remains something to dread, both for the people of China and the rest of the world.
We might also remind ourselves that the students' desire for democracy, while sounding reasonable enough, may be planting the seeds of their ultimate destruction. It all depends on what they mean by "democracy. If they simply want their voices heard, one hopes Beijing finds a way to listen. If, on the other hand, the students' concept of democracy includes the idea that the majority ought to have its way, then we can expect that to be squelched with whatever force Beijing considers necessary. Of course, we're probably not looking at such a bald assertion by these students, hence their declaration that they don't want "revolution."
Yet, despite the letter that a revolution isn't the goal of the protests, such a stand-off could easily devolve into "this is what we want" with the commensurate assertion that the "this" represents the majority of the people in Hong Kong (hardly, by the way, a reasonable assumption). Indeed, clashes between students protestors and those unidentified "groups" of Hong Kong residents commenced by the end of the weekend, and, while it's not clear who these "groups" represent," it would seem we're faced with the type of crisis endemic to democracy, one which our Founding Fathers recognized from the get-go, and a powerful motivating factor in the form of government ultimately proposed by the Constitutional Convention in 1789, that is, a republican form of government. With all the talk today about "democracy," we would do well to acknowledge the wisdom of their choice of government. They understood the importance of the voice of the people being heard, but they also knew the dangers "the mob" presents to liberty and justice for all.
(So next time you hear one of our own politicians run off at the mouth about "democracy," you might reasonably question whether they understand that our republican form of government, while allowing for the "voice of the people" does not condone mob rule, or whether they are appealing to that very "mob" in order to get their way.)
Despite the increasing turn away from real Constitutional government and the growing ascendancy of power politics in our own country these days, still the difference between the Chinese government and our own remains stark. We would do well to remember this, and cherish our unique tradition. It may not have been a perfect system, even at its inception, but when placed side-by-side with some of the alternatives out there, it's virtues do seem worthy of preservation.
When the British turned over the reigns of government to Beijing in 1997, Hong Kong would retain a separate arrangement that would permit the city to continue to operate in a kind of semi-independent way: one country, two sets of rules. But apparently Beijing prefers just one set of rules and their preferences don't coincide with the student protesters' preferred set. Interestingly, Britain retained a roll in the 1997 agreement that called for it to somehow "monitor" the situation to assure that the separate treatment of Hong Kong continued as originally planned. While the British ex-Governor of Hong Kong has called on the UK to fulfill its ordained role, you have to wonder exactly what the London government would do if it found Beijing's actions against the spirit of the 1997 agreement. One suspects verbal protest would be the limit of the response. But perhaps ex-Governor Chris Patten feels that's better than just going along with what's going on.
The dark shadow lurking behind current events must be the Tiananmen Square massacre of students by the Chinese government in 1989. Beijing's true nature fully manifested itself that day, and for all intents and purposes, that nature hasn't changed in the ensuing 25 years. It's a communist government founded on the principle of all power to the Party. Protests that cross a certain line simply aren't tolerated, and there's no real recourse to rule of law when that line is crossed.
We hope things don't get to that point. But we might remind ourselves that "Communist China" - while we hardly hear that term hardly used anymore - remains the apt description of the Beijing gang that rules that vast country. With all the talk about the future belonging to China, the Hong Kong protests remind us that, if that's the case, a future that includes the ascendancy of those Communists who hold the reigns of power in China remains something to dread, both for the people of China and the rest of the world.
We might also remind ourselves that the students' desire for democracy, while sounding reasonable enough, may be planting the seeds of their ultimate destruction. It all depends on what they mean by "democracy. If they simply want their voices heard, one hopes Beijing finds a way to listen. If, on the other hand, the students' concept of democracy includes the idea that the majority ought to have its way, then we can expect that to be squelched with whatever force Beijing considers necessary. Of course, we're probably not looking at such a bald assertion by these students, hence their declaration that they don't want "revolution."
Yet, despite the letter that a revolution isn't the goal of the protests, such a stand-off could easily devolve into "this is what we want" with the commensurate assertion that the "this" represents the majority of the people in Hong Kong (hardly, by the way, a reasonable assumption). Indeed, clashes between students protestors and those unidentified "groups" of Hong Kong residents commenced by the end of the weekend, and, while it's not clear who these "groups" represent," it would seem we're faced with the type of crisis endemic to democracy, one which our Founding Fathers recognized from the get-go, and a powerful motivating factor in the form of government ultimately proposed by the Constitutional Convention in 1789, that is, a republican form of government. With all the talk today about "democracy," we would do well to acknowledge the wisdom of their choice of government. They understood the importance of the voice of the people being heard, but they also knew the dangers "the mob" presents to liberty and justice for all.
(So next time you hear one of our own politicians run off at the mouth about "democracy," you might reasonably question whether they understand that our republican form of government, while allowing for the "voice of the people" does not condone mob rule, or whether they are appealing to that very "mob" in order to get their way.)
Despite the increasing turn away from real Constitutional government and the growing ascendancy of power politics in our own country these days, still the difference between the Chinese government and our own remains stark. We would do well to remember this, and cherish our unique tradition. It may not have been a perfect system, even at its inception, but when placed side-by-side with some of the alternatives out there, it's virtues do seem worthy of preservation.
Comments