Can a Hong Kong in crisis turn away from violence and learn the lesson of democratic compromise? Sudan has shown how

Violence on either side should not obscure the valid public concerns that continue to fuel massive protest turnouts. An unequal society is at the root of it all, and it is time for the government to sit down and listen respectfully to peaceful protesters

Kerry Kennedy

Published: 6:00am, 28 Aug 2019

Why you can trust SCMP

At the beginning of the current protest movement, I wrote that there were two protest cultures in Hong Kong – one peaceful and one violent. At the time, I questioned which one would win. Among some, it is politically incorrect to talk about violence as part of what are regularly described as “Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests”.

Yet, how else to describe the trashing of the Legislative Council, the regular attacks on police stations, petrol bombs, the harassment of passengers at the airport (not to mention the arbitrary detention of two mainlanders in that venue)? These, and more, are violent political acts and must be recognised as such, political incorrectness or not.

Of course, there is violence on the police side as well, and from the gangs in Yuen Long. None of it should be tolerated on either side.

While violence, in general, is a problem for any democratic movement, it is a particular problem in the current context. Protester violence obscures the message from the hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters who have regularly taken to the streets to make their voices heard.

Peaceful protests may have started off as opposition to the extradition bill, but they have become much more than that, involving both young and old and they have a message that must not be lost.

Their message is about fairness in Hong Kong society, a society characterised by inequality. Hong Kong’s Gini coefficient, an international measure of inequality, is regularly above 0.5 – meaning there is considerable disparity in wealth in the city. Other indicators also show the large gaps between the rich and the poor: the lack of housing affordability and career opportunities for many young people, the lack of social mobility, and poor wage growth.

It is inadequate social provision for the majority that brings so many peaceful protesters to the streets. They want to be heard, they have no political democracy that allows them to voice their concerns, so they have chosen the streets.

Radicals happy to see city go up in flames

Yet, this message is obscured by the violent antics of the few. Both the central and local governments seize on the violence to construct the character of the protest movement. Yet, this means the depth of despair in the mass social protests is lost.

Ironically, this also means some peaceful protesters will tolerate the violence, just to get some attention from the government. They simply want to be heard, and they want the government to address the very real social issues affecting them on a daily basis.

Healing the considerable rifts in society must be a priority for the government. To do so, it must act like a democratic government. In any democratic society, attempts will be made to identify common ground when there are differences between groups, including differences with governments.

A good recent example was seen in the African nation of Sudan. Having removed a long-time dictator, the Sudanese army planned to establish a new military government. Pro-democracy supporters wanted a new civilian government. After much debate and discussion, agreement emerged supporting a power- sharing arrangement between the army and the protesters. This was not the preferred solution of either group, but it was a compromise that enabled the country to move forward.

Flashlights and laser pointers illuminate a human chain at the top of Lion Rock Hill during an event dubbed the “Hong Kong Way” on August 23. An estimated 210,000 protesters created 60km of human chains across Hong Kong on the day to highlight their demands. Photo: Winson Wong

Hongkongers have decided enough is enough. To ignore them would be foolish

The position reached in Sudan was a compromise, because moving forward was seen to be more important than a stand-off and paralysis of the country. Compromise is an essential feature of democracies – it is the only way pluralistic societies can resolve conflicts and differences. On both sides in Hong Kong, the lesson of compromise needs to be learned.

If moving forward is seen to be important in Hong Kong, two things must happen. First, the government needs to sit down with the peaceful side of the protest movement and listen to it respectfully. This means the government, including the chief executive, the Executive Council and the civil service, must accept their limitations in understanding society’s needs.

Second, the current view that the protest movement must appear as seamless has to be questioned. The social concerns of the peaceful protesters should not be constantly obscured by the political and system-destroying aims of the violent flank of the movement.

Peaceful protesters must break away from the violence and promote their own purposes related to improving social conditions in Hong Kong. Such purposes, of course, have a political edge to them: but they are about making the system more accountable and eventually more democratic, not destroying it.

There is another reason for the peaceful wing of the movement to assert its autonomy. Peaceful protest works. But it will take a change of mindset on the part of both the peaceful protesters and the government. Talking together, listening and agreeing on common areas are the only tools available to move forward. In the end, this means advancing the cause of many through system reform, rather than destroying the system.

This is what democracy means: identifying where there is agreement, moving forward gradually, but never giving up the struggle. This is history’s lesson, and it should also be Hong Kong’s.

Kerry Kennedy is professor emeritus at The Education University of Hong Kong

Post