15/01/2015
Miquel Porta Perales is a writer
News agency dispatch from Thursday 11 December, 2014: ‘Hong Kong police begun clearing today, after more than two months of occupation, the Admiralty site, the central district of the city, where thousands of people camped beside the seat of the local government demanding true democracy in the former colony.’ A couple of things about the so-called ‘Umbrella Revolution’ – the students demanding democracy and universal suffrage in Hong Kong protected themselves from tear gas fired by the police with umbrellas: hence the name – are worth noting: first, the actions of the People's Republic of China with regard to domestic policy; second, a ‘Manual of disobedience’ that could have consequences in the People's Republic of China. First things first.
1. The ‘clearance’ of any protest and democratic proposal is still common in the People's Republic of China. No elections may be held without the approval of the Communist Party. And elections with the approval of the Communist Party have to undergo a preselection of the candidates who are to ‘compete’ in the ballot. Precisely that happened in Hong Kong: only candidates who have received the placet of Beijing may stand for election to the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Hence the students protest. But this time we should not ignore the nuance. Unlike Tiananmen's pure and simple crackdown, in Hong Kong the government has waited for the democratic movement to deflate over time and only then protesters were peacefully evicted. The detail: the clearance took place as a result of a bus company complaint aggrieved by the protesters' concentration in their parking place. Is something changing in the People's Republic of China? Is the peaceful clearance only a result of the concentration and demonstration taking place in a strong economic plaza as Hong Kong? We will see. Beyond the ‘Umbrella Revolution’, the following question should be asked: Will Beijing's internal control policy be enough to address the current problems – ethnic tensions and insurgencies, concentration of power, inequality between rural and urban areas, internal redistribution of resources, housing problems or absence of an adequate system of retirement pensions and social security – in the People's Republic of China? Suffice it to say that in matters of foreign policy – Japan, India, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States – pragmatism prevails. Could the same thing happen – in the medium or long-term – with regard to domestic policy?
2. The defeat of the ‘Umbrella Revolution’ has resulted – paradox – in a window of opportunity for the democratic movement on the People's Republic of China. I am talking about the ‘Manual of disobedience’ prepared by Occupy Central, Hong Kong's most important movement in defence of democracy. Beyond the details – proper clothing, not concealing their faces when demonstrating, not using flags or banners that limit vision, carrying medical certificate on illnesses, or the information that mobile phones should have – the text describes civil disobedience (‘refusing to enforce a law, decree or order, not cooperating with unjust authorities and changing society through continuous protest’), categorically rejects the use of violence (‘resorting to violence is not allowed’), calls for protester responsibility (‘bear the legal consequences of our behaviour’) and reports the current laws in the People's Republic of China in order to reduce ‘the possibilities of committing a crime’. Let's see. Why is the ‘Manual of disobedience’ a window of opportunity for the Chinese democracy movement? Because, besides being a know-how for future democratic demands in Hong Kong, it allows managing the legacy of the ‘Charter 08’ (December 10, 2008, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) signed by various groups of human rights activists, demanding the establishment of democracy in the People's Republic of China.
Final note or warning to individuals full of so-called good intentions. Probably – in line with what has been said – someone will ask the following question: Is the ‘Manual of Civil Disobedience’ of the Democrats of Hong Kong applicable in democratic regimes and in the Rule of Law? No. democracy and the Rule of Law are incompatible with civil disobedience as they make up an area in which a law that equals, protects and frees all citizens prevails. In democratic regimes, in the Rule of Law, the law is fulfilled. Hannah Arendt: ‘the difficulties of incorporating it [civil disobedience] into the legal system . . . seem to be prohibitive . . . Obviously 'the law cannot justify the violation of the law' even if this violation aims at preventing the violation of another law’ (Civil Disobedience, 1970).