Hong Kong’s Protests are a Sign of the Rising Appeal of Populism

In the wake of various public remonstrations worldwide, I needed to make sense of it—or at least place it in a broader context that could better explain it all. In no way can I cover the unique reasons why some protests occurred (it’s possible to point to the rising usage of social media prior to some instances as in the case of the 2013 Egyptian and Tunisian protests, or tremendous economic instability and corruption in other countries like Venezuela), but instead I bring your attention to a common thread in much of them: populism.

Populism is nothing new. Bad economic times breed an angry populace, and populism is the go-to policy when people who have hit bad times need a scapegoat in the form of societal and political elites. The American “Occupy Movement,” a visceral example of populism in the works, demonstrates an increasing recognition (and/or fear) of growing economic inequality—a societal feature people blame on their political representatives, Big Government and Big Business. Populism grows increasingly appealing in America, fueled partially by political polarization and congressional stalemate as many Americans seek the feelings of political efficacy they feel they’ve lost.

The rising appeal of populism is a common story that’s reverberating not just across the United States, but worldwide in Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia where growing inequality, the global economic recession, as well as rising immigration has produced a general distaste for incumbent politicians and governments. Indonesia voted in a populist president who ascended from the ranks of the Indonesian working class, while the EU Parliament recently became much more populist, nationalistic and anti-EU. There’s a general sense that big authority is bad authority, and that the government needs to be taken back for the people.

Populism differs in someways across the board globally, but the general concept remains the same: a rejection of current authority and elites — this in itself a broad rejection. Technology has allowed for a rapid news delivery and dissemination, enabling people to accumulate vast knowledge and giving them a vehicle to express their opinions. The availability of information has united people quicker and more efficiently around large, often “big” ideas regardless of the rationality behind the movement’s claims. For instance, Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement this past March, which protested economic and political dealings between Taiwan and China, failed to see the realities of Taiwan’s position on the world stage and declared that Taiwan should somehow ignore the fact that they need trade with China to sustain their dependent economy.

Hong Kong’s recent protests further demonstrate that a worldwide populist movement is in force. The protests initially stemmed from anger at China’s failure to honor the “One Country, Two Systems,” policy — a policy that upheld Hong Kong’s right to form a democracy but also a policy that China has always seen as temporary and one that it would keep its domineering hands clasped tightly around. China’s rejection of these terms adds to the overall feeling that governance in Hong Kong is no longer based on the democratic rights that Hong Kong people deem sacrosanct.

In the past decade there have been a number of incidences where the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) government has acted contrary to public opinion as well— the introduction of the 2012 Moral and National Education Curriculum and Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23 to name a few examples, not to mention the stipulation that Hong Kong can only vote on candidates approved by the Chinese government. Increasingly, it appears that the SAR government is no longer representing the will of Hong Kong people. There are other issues at stake in Hong Kong too—a prevalent anger about the growing inequality across the city that has disproportionately affected youth, a wealth disparity that seems to have no solution under the existing governing structures, as well as immigration woes caused by the influx of mainlanders who’ve become Hong Kong residents. In fact, Hong Kong is inundated with feelings of governmental inadequacy.

What’s detrimental in Hong Kong’s case is that the current protests will most likely amount to little in terms of achieving political independence from China, but Hong Kong’s other woes will be lost in the mix with little possibility of being addressed if current protests continue to take on it’s highly populist, idealistically broad stance that people are fighting for “universal suffrage” and democracy. A populist, pro-democracy agenda is at odds with current Chinese domestic policies, whose democratic trends are dismal given China’s recent crackdowns on public demonstrations and freedom of speech. Moreover, movements away from highly authoritarian regimes across some of the world (Egypt, Libya, parts of Eastern Europe, etc.) doesn’t quite tame China’s anxious, authoritarian heart. As if to further substantiate its authoritarian existence at this time, China celebrated its national day last week with a blast of militaristic pageantry and fireworks. What’s always possible is partial victory, but the issues of wealth disparity and against Mainland immigration will be lost in Hong Kong’s fight for more democracy — a zero-sum game in the eyes of China who’s tendency to back down in a fight is nil.

Talks between the Hong Kong Federation of Students and government representatives are taking place and protest movements have worked before in Hong Kong. What’s possible in this case may be that the current SAR leader, Leung Chun-Ying, will step down although it seems like there’s little chance of that happening now. As the current Hong Kong government increases pressure for protestors to stop their resistance in the next few days, there’s a good chance that really nothing will have changed for Hong Kong citizens despite all their bold, persistent intentions.