Hong Kong begins its own 'March of Folly'
Modern financial centres depend on the social stability and protection of strong, independent judiciaries that only a democratic government affords
And now the governments in Hong Kong and Beijing begin their march of folly, a descent into a cycle of preventable and irreversible decisions and acts that threaten to introduce permanent and irreconcilable civil and political instability into Hong Kong.
By failing to address quality of life issues caused by a tycoon-dominated economy, the government fuelled concerns over the Basic Law's election process into a sprawling protest that is busting at the seams with history's self-contradictions.
Like financial markets, history inflicts its cycles on participants who stubbornly decide to defend the wrong side of human conflict. Barbara Tuchman's groundbreaking work is worth reading because it explores the reasons that humans, especially governments, persist in actions that are illogical and foolish, that actually hurt their self-interest. The leaders of the Hong Kong and central governments are unwittingly creating their own chapter.
Tuchman defines folly as the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests, despite the availability of feasible alternatives. She suggests that ambition makes people in a position of power hesitant to change course, appear weak or to ignore the greater good for their own benefit. Erroneous, initial conclusions are reached early on. As opposition mounts, the initial conclusions are codified and reinforced because those in power don't want to "lose". Persistence errors emerge. Even as evidence piles up it is difficult to admit defeat, leading to even more costs and an eventual stunning loss of prestige and face. Today, Hong Kong is experiencing this kind of failure and delusion in government.
For students, the Occupy movement and democracy are metaphors for a leap into the unknown as if life is on the line. Call it existentialist, romantic, even nihilistic. However, they don't realise that idealism is peaceful, but history is bloody. The young instinctively believe that there is something grand and glorious about risking everything for a moment of genuine transcendence. Once an idea escapes into the masses - in this case Hong Kong's middle class and students - it can't be extinguished. All the paternal and sinister warnings from our tycoons and high officials only reinforce the cycle of resistance.
China's leaders drew crucial lessons from the collapse of the Soviet Union that explain why they refuse to compromise. They observed that Gorbachev made a fatal misjudgment by allowing liberal ideas to infect the Soviet body politic. It soon developed into an ideological vacuum, which precipitated the collapse of the USSR. That is probably why President Xi Jinping has placed a heavy emphasis on ideology since coming to power. After Gorbachev allowed liberalism into the Soviet Union it utterly collapsed. It proved autocracies cannot accommodate democracy; instead they suffer apoplectic shock. So Xi chooses to be the Putin of China, not its Gorbachev.
Those in power need to intellectually resolve how democracy is both a positive and negative form of governance. People who govern themselves possess more dignity and respect the institutions that govern them. But they also have a greater tendency and more avenues to complain about their government. Instead, officials have descended into an intellectual and political dead end where unyielding principles justify hardline decisions encased in a bunker mentality.
From Taiwan to America, the rancorous public debates of democracies are necessarily messy. However, democracy could provide a balance of power that Hong Kong sorely needs. Modern financial centres depend on the kind of social stability and protection of robust, independent judiciaries that only a liberal, democratic government affords. Few financial centres have flourished under a one-party state torn by civil and political strife.