At the core of "Occupy Central's" demands, as articulated by co-organizer Martin Lee during his trip to Washington D.C. with Anson Chan earlier this year, is the belief that Beijing should honor the demands made by parting British occupiers who held Hong Kong territory for nearly a century and a half. This includes the "one nation, two systems" approach that the US and British hope will allow Hong Kong to be used to "infect" mainland China with a Western controlled political orders and institutions.
"Occupy Central" insists that they simply want "universal suffrage" and "total democracy" instead of allowing Beijing to approve who can and cannot run in elections to be held in 2017. This implies that the alternative to Beijing's arrangements would be "free and fair" elections. In reality this simply is not the case. In reality, instead of Beijing putting up candidates for Hong Kong's elections, the next most influential political backers would vet and put forward candidates - not the Hong Kong people -but rather those foreign interests in Washington, upon Wall Street, and in the City of London who are currently backing "Occupy Central" and many of the leaders who would contest upcoming elections.
The notion of "free and fair elections" is one of absolute naivety. Former Berkeley labor activist Michael Pirsch now residing in Thailand shared his thoughts on what he sees as somewhat hypocritical or perhaps misguided thinking among "Occupy Central's" genuine followers - misconceptions "Occupy Central's" US-backed leadership is all too happy to exploit.
Pirsch first points out the ultimate problem with the US backing political movements in foreign countries, stating:
Are there any foreign countries promoting democracy and human rights inside America? There are none, it is not allowed. However, America, through the National Endowment for Democracy disburses millions of dollars in countries in order to effect regime change to a regime much friendlier to America's policy goals of controlling the planet.
Pirsch then compares Beijing's policy of vetting candidates for Hong Kong's elections to the US primaries, in which big-business ultimately decides who can and cannot run because of the immense financial means required to stand in an election:
It seems to me, to borrow from Noam Chomsky, China is run by "criminal communists" and America is run by "corporate criminals". In America we have the hidden (financial) primary. where potential candidates demonstrate their ability to attract millions or hundreds of millions for campaigns ranging from local level to national level. If the candidate is unable to attract shiploads of dollars their candidacy is not viable. Nearly all this money comes from the "criminal capitalists". We are allowed to choose from only those who swear to protect the financial criminals.
In Hong Kong, the system is much the same, except that it is the "criminal communists" who choose the candidates. Both systems provide the same outcome: there is no benefit to the citizens of either Hong Kong or America.Ultimately, Beijing's style of "democracy" is no different than the US-style "democracy" "Occupy Central" protesters are rallying for. Of course, Pirsch is only scratching the surface. Support for US candidates, and in fact the functioning of the whole electoral process also hinges on how that process is presented to the public through the media. The media, just like the American primaries, are tightly controlled by advertisers and sometimes directly by corporate-financier interests themselves - just as Martin Lee and Anson Chan complained was the case in China in regards to Beijing's control over the political process there.
The Solution is Pragmatic, Not Political
Indeed, at the end of the day, the only choice Hong Kong seems to have at the moment is a political process manipulated and controlled by foreign interests upon Wall Street and in London, or by Beijing in China. The fallacy of believing "democracy" can bring about progress or power to the people is laid bare by these two relatively lacking choices.
 |
| Image: Believe it or not, growing your own food or visiting your local farmers' market is more revolutionary and constructive than burning down your own city and killing security forces. Real progress stems from pragmatism, not politics. |
The problem ultimately is large monopolies of corporate-financier and political power, be they of a Western nature or of Chinese origin. The solution is not participating in political rackets meant to give the illusion of self-determination, but to diminish and decentralize those monopolies pragmatically and locally so that people can better determine their own lives by directly controlling the infrastructure necessary for modern, peaceful, and prosperous lives.
Monopolies must begin being dismantled globally, regionally, nationally, provincially, and finally locally. For the people of Hong Kong, then, their next move is simple - expose and oppose the global monopolies that seek to co-opt their destiny via their agents leading the "Occupy Central" movement today. Then they can begin dealing with their national problem in Beijing tomorrow - and do so constructively and pragmatically - not divisively and politically.
China, or any other nation for that matter, to move forward pragmatically and progressively, must possess an educated, technically competent, pragmatic population that believes in evolution, rather than city-burning "revolution." The process of devolving power away from massive monopolies of corporate-financier and/or political power can take the form of an orderly transition, leveraging modern technology and innovative solutions to begin building up local infrastructure as massive monopolies are slowly diminished. It need not manifest itself in protests, referendums, or any other process of selecting representatives to implement solutions the people themselves are more than capable of organizing and executing.
The "Occupy Central" protesters would serve Hong Kong best if they abandoned their clearly compromised, exploitative leadership, their disruptive tactics, and instead set up direct action committees that pursued pragmatic community projects to improve education, infrastructure, business, health, and environmental concerns.
