In the light of the ongoing protests, civil unrest and violence, Hong Kong is entering its dark times. What began from a clear cut movement against the now dead Extradition Bill turned into a seemingly anarchic movement under the pretext of desiring democracy. Whether the police or protesters are aware or not, the chaos brought upon by the months of unrest is the very definition of anarchy – not simply destruction or rejection but denial of what is believed as inhuman government and establishing a more just, acceptable and human system.
Please don’t argue Foucault or Bentham on this Weber reference, fight me. At the very least, I remain confident in my belief that both the protesters and the police force do not act for the sake of acting but their actions serve as a reflection of what system they believe is better for Hong Kong.
That does not relate to the title at all, though. One question popped up in my head in the many hours of reading the news whilst breathing the tear gas in my own home. Where is this leading to? No, this is not a question pertaining to how the conclusion of this movement will take place. I am wondering what kind of society lies beyond this conflict.
My initial answer: a democratic Hong Kong from the protesters; a tighter control of the city by the government from the police. It does not make sense, at least from the protesters side. I will be adding references later, and just nerd about it all together in another post, but the means to achieve an aim ought to reflect the aim itself. I confused myself – how you do it should reflect the character of what you are doing it for.
In the case of a democratic Hong Kong as an end goal – the means ought to be democratic, should it not?
However the recent modes of protesting and overall sentiments of the protest is everything against democracy. Democracy is a system which compromises of the entire population. It advocates freedom so every individual is capable of participation and it strongly promotes freedom of expression.
The use of threat and infliction of harm upon others with varying or opposing political views; the disruption of traffic, the public disturbances caused by delays, cancellation of lectures and closure of working areas, and I could go on with this list. Does this sound like democracy to you?
That’s why I said initial. It was clear in the beginning what the aim of the protests was – to achieve democracy, hence the peaceful means of doing so. Yet frustrations over the ineptness of the government to properly address and actually respond to the voice of the citizens; the excessive use of force by the police over the peaceful protests have resulted to the current standstill of violence on both sides. It is only understandable. We are only humans, and with the continuous unrest and stakes getting higher every second, hate has finally reached the brim of patience and baaaam, let’s break everything so they will listen to us. We are in the right side of things, we know what’s right and we can do anything because it’s for the right thing.
A movement needs a vision. A fight needs an endgoal. The current situation does not strike any vision to me. Every vandalism is the expression of the unheard, the destruction as a commemoration of a fallen comrade, the burning and threats for the sake of revenge. It’s all over the place. One fight cannot accommodate that much checklist and a movement would cease to be once it loses its character which lies in its vision.
I am hoping that we all go back to what we’ve longingly desired and fought for – freedom – the freedom we all loved Hong Kong for.