Laura Hilgers, in the NYTimes, as “A democracy movement ponders its next move“:
On the final night of Hong Kong’s largest Occupy camp, a crowd of protesters swelled along an empty highway. It had been 74 days since the first canister of tear gas hit democracy supporters armed with only umbrellas, setting off what the city soon came to call the Umbrella Revolution. It had been more than two months since protesters first sat on that street in their raincoats, sleepless and worried that the military would soon arrive. The fear had now dissipated, and on this cool December evening, the atmosphere was raucous and festive. People filled the empty spaces between tents, spilling out of a metro stop and pouring over concrete barriers with the help of carefully constructed wooden steps. They lined up for free souvenirs — silk-screened T-shirts, leather necklaces, protest stickers — and gathered around microphones for open meetings. They threw glitter and snapped photographs. They sang along to pop songs crooned by a man called Bananaooyoo (now a protest icon whose signature color, like that of the protest itself, is yellow). Archivists removed pieces of artwork for safekeeping, and a few activists hung yellow banners: “We’ll be back.”…
No one planned the Umbrella Revolution, at least not the way it actually unfolded. It began as a movement called Occupy Central With Love and Peace, the brainchild of a tidily dressed law professor at the University of Hong Kong named Benny Tai, who works out of a narrow office where bookcases run from floor to ceiling — even his scholarly clutter is well dusted and clean. He speaks with the slight British accent that is common in Hong Kong and manages to sound enthusiastic about his subject without a single change in his expression. “I see myself more as an idea carrier,” Tai told me, when we met at his office. “I contribute an idea, and that’s it,” he explained. Then he added, “Now I more and more understand that ideas can be very dangerous.”…
As a student in the 1980s, Tai served on a 180-person committee that oversaw the drafting of Hong Kong’s Constitution, a document that called for Hong Kong’s autonomy but gave sweeping powers to the city’s chief executive. It also left Hong Kong with a system of government that puts power directly into the hands of the city’s business elite. Half the seats in Hong Kong’s legislature are determined by so-called functional constituencies — voting blocs grouped by industry rather than by geographic district. “A lot of the votes in functional constituencies are actually corporate votes; they’re not even given to human individuals,” Anson Chan, the 75-year-old woman who ran the city’s Civil Service before and after the handover, told me over cups of tea at the office of her pro-democracy group, Hong Kong 2020. “So if you are a big business tycoon in Hong Kong, and you have a dozen companies, all of which are eligible to vote, you essentially not just have one vote or two votes, you have a dozen votes.” While there are 3.5 million eligible voters for the 35 seats divided by geography, there are only 232,000 people and corporations voting in the functional constituencies.
A result of this system, according to Tai and many protesters, is growing economic inequality — and a hated chief executive: Leung Chun-ying, a former real estate surveyor with a penchant for insensitive comments. Leung was elected to the position in 2012 by the 1,200-member committee that decides the office, most of whom are not subject to popular elections. After a campaign in which he accused his opponent of having an illegal structure in his home, Leung turned out to have illegal structures in his own. He later pushed an education-reform package that emphasized a rosy, more patriotic picture of Beijing (it was ultimately dropped). Leung, who is better known as C.Y. Leung, is so reviled that toilet paper was sold with his face on it; at an appearance at LegCo, a legislator threw a bun at him. In an interview with foreign media during the protests, he warned that democracy would turn Hong Kong over to the poor. “Then you would end up with that kind of politics and policies,” he said, ominously…
Somewhere, Scott Walker’s aides are furiously taking notes for a presentation to the Koch brothers. And yet, in Hong Kong, while the economic situation seems familiar, the immediate personal risks are obviously far higher:
Leung’s administration has also presided over a slide in the standard of living. Hong Kong’s businesses are increasingly tied to mainland China and seen as beholden to leaders in Beijing. Over the past 10 years, the median income in the city has increased by 30 percent, even as G.D.P. has grown by 60 percent. Twenty percent of Hong Kong’s population is living under the official poverty line, but the city’s 50 richest people, according to the annual list compiled by Forbes, are worth a total of $236 billion (Hong Kong’s entire G.D.P. in 2013, by comparison, was $274 billion). Tai paid lip service to economic inequality in the name of his movement — Occupy — but his demands were more modest, limited only to the election of the city’s chief executive. “It’s just getting Hong Kong people to have that right to vote and have a true election,” he said. “It’s a first step only.” By the time I arrived at the camp on Harcourt Road, comparisons with other global protests had started to grate on the leaders; they did not aim to overthrow a government, they pointed out, or to challenge an entire economic system. The movement’s name changed to the Umbrella Revolution to reflect not just the literal image of umbrellas as shields but also how participation had expanded…
For the party, the protests have threatened to become a powerful symbol of liberalization and economic prosperity. In arguing for democracy, Tai was pitting himself not against Leung but against leaders on the mainland (“Leung Chun-ying is widely understood as an underground C.C.P. member and a puppet of Beijing,” reads an introduction on the Occupy Central website). The only way to measure Beijing’s response has been through crackdowns. In mainland China, those thought to be supporters of the protest — even those who just expressed support online — have been thrown in jail. Late in the protest, when China’s president, Xi Jinping, made a trip to Macau on a rainy day, journalists were not allowed to carry umbrellas…
For more details, personal stories, slideshows, and future possibilities, read the whole article.
Botsplainer
Whenever I read a story about the potential for far reaching reforms presented by activism by Western-oriented democracy-seeking Occupy-style movements, I can’t help but think that the Segway is going to revolutionize personal mobility and that Dippin’ Dots are the ice cream of the future…
Just Some Fuckhead
Peaceful revolutions only work when the other side is capable of being shamed.
Chris
Not sure if communism becoming capitalism or capitalism becoming communism…
“East and West, points of the compass, each as stupid as the other!”
Roger Moore
@Chris:
They’re both heading toward feudalism.
Villago Delenda Est
@Roger Moore: DING DING DING DING DING
Chris
@Roger Moore:
True.
I think all political systems devolve into aristocracy if left to themselves. The rich, powerful and connected use their wealth, power and connections to increasingly insulate themselves, concentrate the power into their hands, pass on their status to their children, and lock the general public out of the system.
Roger Moore
@Chris:
The Ancient Greeks had a whole theory about how political systems evolved. They thought there tended to be a cycle of monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and then back to monarchy. I don’t think it’s quite as regular as that, but there’s some truth to the idea. They felt the only way of maintaining something like stability was to have elements of all three in the government, and you can see some echoes of that idea in our own government.
Matt McIrvin
@Roger Moore: Usually I see that cyclic theory propounded by libertarians. It’s actually the opposite of what Chris proposed: the idea is that societies gradually democratize, but democracies always collapse into anarchy when the unwashed “realize they can vote themselves the treasury”, setting the stage for a strongman to rise and re-establish the monarchy.
They insist that, of course, that we’re at the collapse point now because liberalism and the welfare state.
Often they insist that this cycle is an ironclad rule followed by every society throughout history. I have yet to hear of an actual example of any society going through the whole cycle, but it doesn’t dissuade them.
Roger Moore
@Matt McIrvin:
I have yet to hear of any stable democracy collapsing because the citizens voted for all kinds of unfunded goodies. That’s probably because it’s all projection, the way it always is with those people. Monarchies and Oligarchies are all about using taxes (and laws) to redistribute wealth upward, so the monarchists and oligarchists assume democracies are going to do the same thing.
Chris
@Matt McIrvin:
Oh, they just make things up. Libertarians “know” that the Roman Empire started its downward spiral soon after it started handing out bread to the poor for free – no idea what they’re talking about, but I’ve seen it pop up multiple times.
@Roger Moore:
The idea that any society, anywhere in history, has ever spent anywhere near the amount of money on the poor that would be required to bankrupt it… is hilarious.
Roger Moore
@Chris:
Funny how they always blame policies that try to mitigate the problems of the poor and never the ones that result in there being a gigantic mass of poor people in the first place.
JoeShabadoo
@Roger Moore: They just needed to pull themselves up by their sandal-straps. With the standard gold aureus and silver denarius as currency nothing could get in their way!