Democracy and Dictatorship: An Analysis of the Hong Kong Protests
The tense relationship and ongoing conflict between the government of mainland China and the citizens of Hong Kong can best be examined through the discrepancies of their relationship: the differing views of the “one country, two systems” model and the rights and identity that both Hong Kong and China believe come with it.
Previously occupied and owned by Britain, Hong Kong’s struggle with identity—a key underlying factor of the conflict—did not surface at the same time the protests did in 2019. During the 1960s, nearly one hundred years following Britain’s occupation of the area, social unrest began to rise partially as a result of an impoverished workforce and partially as a result of the Cultural Revolution in China. Hong Kong remained under British control until 1982, when Britain and China began speaking of transferring control of Hong Kong to China. Britain agreed to give Hong Kong to China under the condition that it maintains democratic leadership and a capitalist economic approach for the fifty years that followed. Since the transfer of control in 1997, Hong Kong has operated and continues to operate semi-autonomously, giving it the ability to self-govern under the Basic Law of Hong Kong, or the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s constitution. While many see this as a positive, Hong Kong’s self-autonomy only fuels the conflict between mainland China and Hong Kong and sets the groundwork for the protests in early 2019.
In regards to Hong Kong and Chinese interaction, observing the difference in how Hong Kong citizens view their relationship with China is vital. The differing personal identities are only fueled by Hong Kong citizens being culturally affected by the Chinese mainland. While Hong Kong citizens share cultural norms, such as consuming Cantonese cultural products, an exploration in the difference of civic norms between those in Hong Kong and those in mainland China begins to explain the actions and explosive nature of recent protests. Because the government in Hong Kong is semi-democratic—running on the Basic Law that has three key principles: “one country, two systems,” with a “high degree of autonomy” and emphasis that “Hong Kong People run Hong Kong”—many citizens of Hong Kong reject the authoritarian government of mainland China. Due to the strong opposition to authoritarianism, the citizens of Hong Kong inevitably resist when the mainland attempts to tighten its grip on Hong Kong. The civic norms and cultural differences can be seen as a source of cultural violence, as both Hong Kong citizens and Chinese citizens participate in “othering,” where neither the mainland nor Hong Kong identify with one another. The citizens of Hong Kong get to enjoy many democratic freedoms, such as the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, despite the “one country, two systems” principle—and they use them, hence the protests. However, the Basic Law is set to expire in 2047 with the intention of integrating Hong Kong into mainland China, meaning the constitutional framework and common law system of Hong Kong would cease to exist, giving mainland China an authoritarian rule over the area.
While the idea of “one country, two systems” seems like an ideal way to gradually transfer power back to China, it only caused identities to shift and tensions to grow within Hong Kong. With these root causes in mind, it comes to no surprise that tensions sparked an explosion of protests following the trigger event in early 2019—the passage of an extradition bill that would allow criminal suspects of Hong Kong to essentially be deported to mainland China. Protests in Hong Kong have occurred in large numbers before, such as in 2003 and in 2014, but with claims from organizers that nearly one million people attended the protests and march, the Hong Kong protests in 2019 seem to outnumber these previous protests. Peaceful protests and marches turned to violence quickly, making it clear that other factors come into play than solely the extradition bill. Police brutality, often cited in investigations of the protests, can be shown as a direct form of violence in the conflict.
By September 2019, nearly six months after protests began, the extradition bill was withdrawn. However, the protests continued—as expected, as underlying issues of the conflict were not addressed with the withdrawal of the bill. While the withdrawal of the extradition bill was a demand of the protestors met by the government, protestors, according to BBC News, have four more demands: “for the protests not to be characterized as a riot, amnesty for arrested protesters, an independent inquiry into alleged police brutality, [and] implementation of complete universal suffrage.” This statement and idea confirms that the third and final form of violence, structural violence, is also a key factor at hand, as they call for universal suffrage. Although the withdrawal was meant to be seen as a tactic to amend the conflict, this action ended up as an event that only brought momentum and change: it provided even higher tensions than before and only enlarged the problem at hand. To drive home this point, on October 1, the day that China celebrated the 70th anniversary of a Communist party rule, Hong Kong saw a peak of violence and chaos—so much so that an 18-year-old died by the bullet of a police officer and protesters began using projectiles and petrol bombs to fight officers.
Other than the withdrawal of the extradition bill in September 2019, the Hong Kong government said it would not attempt to curb the violent pro-democracy protests. Aside from the international community getting involved by supporting the movement from afar, intervention or other involvements have yet to be explored. Of course, because there was only one attempt at trying to bring peace in Hong Kong, it is expected that there has yet to be any success in stopping the protests. Because the conflict is ongoing, there are no clear outcomes or winners of this issue. The seemingly irreversible identity issues between the citizens of Hong Kong and the citizens of mainland China show no sign of disappearing as 2047 lingers in the distant future, considering that the issues are deeper than simply an extradition bill and the cultural, structural, and direct forms of violence have yet to be addressed by both the Hong Kong and the mainland China government.
Although the spread of Coronavirus may have seemed to halt the protests momentarily, large-scale civil disobedience in the city has the potential to resurface once life “goes back to normal.” However, that does not mean that all hope is lost. Perhaps a third party or country could intervene between Hong Kong and the protestors to find a way for all of the demands of the citizens to be met. Perhaps Hong Kong can find a way to maintain its autonomy following 2047. While there is no denying China’s power as a country, a chance at independence for Hong Kong is possible considering the large-scale impacts and involvement. The cultural, structural, and direct forms of violence may not be erased overnight, but hope still stands for Hong Kong independence.
Cover Photo by StudioIncendo. Edited by Katrina Kwok.