#dnaEdit: Democracy, China-style

The massive pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong represent a challenge to Beijing’s authority, perhaps, rivalled only by the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 which culminated in the brutal June 4 massacre when battle tanks and assault rifles were used to mow down unarmed civilians. Twenty-five years later, it appears that the use of disproportionate force has, ironically,  turned the tide against Beijing. The snowballing of the peaceful Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong, led by an assortment of students and civil liberties activists, into mass protests was accelerated by the crackdown using tear gas and anti-riot police. The immediate provocation for the protests may have been China’s blatant rejection of its 1997 promise of fully democratic elections in 2017. But it is riding on the back of a stiff vigil maintained by pro-democracy activists against mainland China’s attempts to subvert the “one country, two systems” deal that gave Hong Kong a measure of autonomy, and civil liberties denied to mainland China. In August, China offered Hong Kong residents a warped interpretation of democracy where all citizens get a vote to elect the chief executive but all the candidates would be handpicked by a pro-Beijing committee. 

China sees this offer as an improvement over the current system where a 1,200-member chief executive election committee, representing various industry and social groups and loyal to Beijing, elects the chief executive. But the piecemeal reform has been rejected, evident from the Occupy Central movement garnering more support for its pro-democracy efforts. In June, the Chinese government released a white paper reaffirming its “complete jurisdiction” over Hong Kong and that the city’s residents were harbouring “many wrong views” and were “confused or lopsided” in their understanding of the “one country, two systems” principle. The white paper was interpreted as a cold warning to democrats to desist from their activities and heed the diktats of mainland Communists. Since the handover from Britain in 1997, Hong Kong’s democratic streak has repeatedly frustrated China’s desire to unify Hong Kong with the mainland in a more seamless manner. In 2003, nearly five lakh marchers took to the streets to thwart Article 23, a national security legislation extending mainland China’s policing methods to Hong Kong. A watershed moment emerged in 2012 when China’s failed attempt to impose a “patriotic curriculum” in local schools was courageously opposed by secondary school students.

Already, the stock markets have responded negatively, proof that big business frowns at protests, even pro-democracy ones. China’s attempts to take credit for Hong Kong’s success are inane. The latter emerged as the third pillar of the global financial market after New York and London, because of its culture of democracy, lack of centralised controls on capital flows, and stringent regulatory structures, all antithetical to China. Pro-China publications are tarring the activists as radicals “jeopardising the global image of Hong Kong” even as they curb and distort news of the protests to mainland residents. Both the protesters and the Hong Kong administration will be wary of the movement dragging on too long. Hong Kong’s sensitivity to its economic interest and China’s paranoia of democratic sentiment spilling over to the mainland could ensure a temporary truce. While the prospect of dealing with an independently elected chief executive officer runs contrary to its autocratic instincts, China has few options left. Accustomed to violently crushing people’s protests, mainland Chinese leaders will certainly find their hands tied dealing with Hong Kong in the glare of free media, and free people.