A brief commentary on Hong Kong

Fourteen weeks after the beginning of the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong and notwithstanding the growing chaos, and violence, Beijing still looks at the situation as a local problem. The Communist leaders do not see any risk of contagion, either in Macau or in any Mainland big city. That explains why they have decided to let the Hong Kong authorities – and above all, the Police – deal with the crisis. It is true that the city authorities have not been very artful or politically astute. But for the time being, Beijing is convinced that the Chief Executive and her people should be the crisis managers. That’s a way of sending the message that this is not a wider problem.

Beijing has also been actively promoting its narrative of what is taking place in Hong Kong. They tell the Mainlanders that these are just some youngsters who are encouraged by outside powers to break the law and rebel against the established system of government. They show on the Chinese TV the scenes of violence and destruction, as a way of discrediting the protesters.

Beijing hopes the protest movement will die out, after a few more weeks or so. They are also betting on the impact that mass arrests might have in terms of discouraging the crowds.

I am not sure Beijing is getting the full understanding of what is taking place in Hong Kong. The protests are deeper than what the leaders think. One of the reasons for Police ineffectiveness in dealing with the demonstrations resides in the widespread support the demonstrators get from the general population of Hong Kong. The young people are on the streets but most of the older people are not against the street actions. This makes it a very distinctive case, when I compare it to other riots I have studied.

The critical importance of civic movements

As I get ready to address a key civil society association that brings together several prominent NGOs and citizens’ groups on matters of geopolitics and strategy, I try to concentrate my speech on three messages.

First, in today’s world, civic movements are key agents of social change. They contribute more than political parties to real value transformation, as, among others, #MeToo, the #ClimateStrike, the #UmbrellaMovement of Hong Kong, the LGBTQ grassroots actions, or India’s people’s campaign against corruption (@IPaidABribe) have shown. Governments know that fact and that’s why they are afraid of such movements. On the side of the political parties, their leaders are yet to understand how to connect with the citizen’s initiatives without falling into populist approaches and rhetoric.

Second, I would like my audience to discuss the role of the social platforms and the interaction between such networks and traditional media. In my opinion, the networks link people and keep them informed and mobilised, but it is the traditional media that gives a critical boost to such civic initiatives and struggles. TV channels, above all, but also credible print media. When they report about what is brewing in the social media, they give the cause a lot of leverage. They add a critical element of credibility. Therefore, we should not dismiss the links between the new and the conventional means of communication.

Third, we need to understand success. What makes a citizen’s movement successful? There is now some research on the matter. It needs to be further systematised and disseminated. Special attention must be given to issues of good leadership, personal commitment, focus, simplicity and image. But several lessons can already be drawn.