Over the past month, pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong have caused waves in the international media. The protests, in response to Beijing’s conditions regarding upcoming elections in 2017, express the people’s dislike of the capital’s mandate that candidates running for leadership positions of the highest order must gain approval from a committee in the Chinese government.
In response to these protests, police officers last week approached crowds violently, firing rubber bullets and suppressing protesters with tear gas. This past weekend, pro-government supporters also lashed out in violence, resulting in nearly twenty injuries, including six police officers.
On some level, it seems foolish to continue protesting. Nonviolent protests only work if the faction in power is willing to listen. For example, one of the main reasons that Ghandi’s protests against the colonial English government were successful was that the British had no desire to be seen as hyper-violent slaughterers. If the government decides to exert more force and the protesters remain steadfast in their nonviolence, the consequences would be dire. Echoes of Tiananmen Square would go from being a quiet background whisper to a foreground cacophony very quickly. A massacre would mean the end of the movement and a loss for the proponents of free elections in Hong Kong without the approval of the Chinese government.
However, the death of a movement’s leaders is not indicative of the death of the movement itself. Ideas do not die; in fact, they cannot die. Their sustenance comes from their discussion by those in the area, in international news outlets and on social media. For ideas, it really is true that any publicity is good publicity. As it is discussed, it can take root in the minds of those with whom it was previously unacquainted and be strengthened via reflection by various different entities with varied mechanisms of thought and reasoning.
The Chinese government and its supporters can exert all the physical force they desire over the protesters. They can cause pain, be violent, make people hurt. They can use tear gas and rubber bullets. They can do more than what they’ve done and lock up dissenters. They can torture those who disagree with policies. What they cannot do, however, is unravel the fabric of ideas. Even after the people of this particular movement are long gone, even after the people attempting to quash the movement are gone, the ideas behind the movement, if they’ve been discussed in a formal setting, if they’ve been written about, if people outside the immediate events have discussed them, will remain alive and well.
Violently suppressing resisters may be a viable solution to control the situation for the present. However, the ideas behind the protesters’ current occupy movement will keep coming back, inciting future generations with the same kind of fervor, a similar desire to defend what they believe to be their personal rights as citizens.
The only way for the Chinese government to achieve the sort of success they want in this scenario is to have honest and open discourse with the protesters. By working with the pro-democracy advocates and coming to a compromise of ideas, not only would both parties be able to maintain their fundamental beliefs, but they’d each be able to have a success of sorts. The protesters would be able to institute some real change and the powers would be able to ultimately control that change. When taken in conjunction with the fact that no physical injury would be sustained by anyone as a result of engaging in diplomatic problem-solving discourse, it seems that this method of reconciliation provides the maximum benefit at the minimum cost and therefore ought to be implemented.
Contact Mina Shah at minashah ‘at’ stanford.edu.