Hong Kong Protests for Democracy

The big news story in our part of the world recently is the protests in Hong Kong, and the heavy-handed response of the Hong Kong police. There are several different groups involved with somewhat different methods and objectives, but in essence the protests have arisen out of the refusal of the Chinese central government to allow the people of Hong Kong to freely choose their leaders. Since the British handed Hong Kong over to China in 1997, the head of the Hong Kong government has been chosen by a committee dominated by pro-Beijing business figures. At the time of the handover, China agreed that universal suffrage was an ultimate goal for elections for the chief executive (and for the Hong Kong legislature as well), and the government’s current plans do call for the chief executive to be elected by the whole voting population in 2017. The problem is that all candidates first have to be approved by a committee that will essentially have the same makeup as the one that chooses the chief executive now. What’s more, one of the qualifications specified by the Chinese government is that all candidates must be “patriotic” and that they not have a confrontational attitude toward Beijing – in other words, they must be loyal to the central government and to the ruling Communist Party. Since Beijing generally views all liberal, pro-democracy politicians and activists as unpatriotic and confrontational, it is virtually guaranteed that under this set-up none of them will have a chance of getting approved. More likely Hong Kong voters will be faced with a choice similar to the two candidates that the committee had to choose from in its most recent vote for chief executive; both were pro-Beijing and pro-business, but the one who had originally been seen as the favorite became tainted by scandal, so the other, Hong Kong’s current leader C.Y. Leung, was elected. Many in Hong Kong rightfully think that by restricting nominations for chief executive in this way, Beijing is reneging on its promise to allow them to freely select their own leader. What's more, they fear that this may merely be a first step in reducing Hong Kong's freedom.

While some might wonder why the business interests that dominate the committee are predominately pro-Bejing, given that they are capitalists and the Chinese leadership is supposedly Communist, it is really no surprise. The business tycoons, for the most part, do not care about true democracy any more than their US counterparts like the Koch brothers. As long as they are free to make money without interference, they won’t object to a certain degree of authoritarianism. That is why Chinese president Xi Jinping recently summoned a large number of Hong Kong business tycoons to Beijing to consult with them on how to deal with (or suppress) the current protests. True democracy in Hong Kong would open the door to demands for higher wages, greater labor rights, and more social welfare. This is something that many of the wealthy business interests are desperate to prevent, and they will eagerly collude with Beijing to fight anything that they consider a threat to their interests. While there are a few rich tycoons who have taken the side of the democratic forces, notably Jimmy Lai, the owner of Next Media, one of the last independent media sources in Hong Kong, but he has faced considerable harassment for his stance. For the most part, the business interests are on the side of Beijing, and if all candidates for Hong Kong’s chief executive have to approved by a committee they dominate, it will be as if candidates for US president had to be approved by the US Chamber of Commerce (forget Barack Obama, much less someone like Elizabeth Warren – in 2012 Americans would probably have been left to choose between Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan).

When taken together with other developments in Hong Kong over the past few years, such as attacks on independently-minded journalists and media outlets and the attempt by the government to pass a stifling anti-subversion law (averted only by massive protests), it is no wonder that many in Hong Kong feel compelled to take to the streets to fight for their remaining freedom. And while due to Hong Kong’s extremely high profile and economic importance, the Chinese government has so far been hesitant to take the violently repressive measures they have taken in Tibet (or that they took in Beijing itself twenty-five years ago), that danger always remains. In any event, Hong Kong’s experience also serves as a lesson to Taiwanese that they would be wise to maintain their country’s independence (through mass protests, if necessary), rather than reaching any political accommodation with a control-obsessed and untrustworthy China. (For another detailed look at the Hong Kong protests, read this article).