There are two great ironies about Hong Kong's protests. First, while the rest of the world's youth are protesting against government inaction on climate change, young people in Hong Kong have come out violently for local democracy and freedoms.


Second, even as Hong Kong's young people wave the Union flag and Stars and Stripes, these Western democracies are experiencing political crises bordering on chaos, with an impeachment crisis in the United States and Brexit in Britain.

The same countries that preach and spread democracy and freedom to countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria through active Western military intervention are, today, failing and failed states.

As one Singapore comedian puts it, colonisation comes from the word "colon", out of which bad things come. Great Britain colonised Hong Kong, granting economic freedoms but not electoral democracy.


Now Hongkongers are victims of the Stockholm syndrome: physically free but mentally captive, Hongkongers ironically profess love for a country that refuses to grant Hong Kong British National (Overseas) passport holders automatic right to British citizenship.

Like the concept of beauty, democracy and freedom are in the eye of the beholder. Countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, when given the right to vote, descend quickly into tribal factionalism, religious differences and bad bureaucracies that cannot deliver law and order or proper jobs.

They also discover that votes can be bought. Electoral democracy allows voters to tell those in power what they like or do not, but does not automatically ensure that what is desired is delivered.

Democracy and freedom are not theoretical ideals universal to all. How democracy and freedoms are practised are the result of complex social contracts negotiated politically at the local level. If the protests are meant to deliver a message of dissent, the protesters have won. But protesting through violence is a no-win situation, because the more you win, the more you lose.

French political scientist Pierre Rosanvallon, in his book Government: Democracy beyond Elections, makes the important point that the crisis of representation in Western democracies reveals deeper discontent - that parliamentary democracy is not delivering good governance and outcomes.

Democracy, meaning rule of people, comes from ancient Greek city-states. In reality, although the cities were ruled by citizens, most residents were slaves with no rights. Slavery was abolished only in the 19th century and women were only given votes in the 20th.

Universal democracy is a modern concept which Britain practised, but did not give to its former colonies until just before their independence. The result is that each former colony practised a different form of democracy, some "guided" as under former Indonesian president Sukarno, and others evolving into permanently elected leaders, such as Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe.

The French political philosopher Montesquieu (1689-1755) idealised representative democracy as a trinity, with the executive checked by the legislature and judiciary. In the 20th century, it became recognised that a free press is the fourth pillar.

But as Professor Rosanvallon shrewdly observed, these ideals morphed in practice from parliamentary democracy towards presidential democracy, because as society became more urban, globalised and complex, the demands for executive action to solve social problems became more urgent.

Unsurprisingly, in the face of ineptitude in governance, many opt for strong leaders and bold executive action. As digital social media hollowed out traditional print media, this guardian of social conscience gradually moved from being a balanced and rational debate of social issues, to being a factional press pushing views that veer towards the extreme.

Social media became the connector of disaffected people and enabled them to "swarm". When one faction deviated into violence, turbocharged by its extreme beliefs of self-sacrifice and martyrdom, the rule of law became the rule of the swarm.

So what system do Hongkongers want, in practice? Mob democracy?

Those who believe in law and order cannot understand why those professing to protect the rule of law are destroying it, by creating a double standard of "no amnesty for police" but "amnesty for law breakers". The rule of law functions on the principle that the state is the only legitimate channel that can take armed action.

Until the violence broke out, Hong Kong was widely admired as a beacon of civilised freedom and rule of law. Today's vivid image is a city controlled by gas-masked black shirts. Democracy and freedom begin with self-discipline, with recognising that keeping within the law protects both your rights and the rights of others.

No one has the freedom to destroy other people's rights through violence. Mob democracy is not the rule of law. The time for violence is over. Time to decide which democratic system fits Hong Kong.

By removing the masks, Hongkongers must face up to very tough choices. Negotiating through gas masks will only end in tears.

Andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an Asian perspective. The views are entirely his own

Copyright (c) 2019. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.



https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion...ce=LINEtodayID


Itulah hidup
Setiap pilihan ada resiko