While there
has been much debate about the Yellow Vest movement’s decentralized
strategy of operating without a clearly defined leadership across France, similar
developments are now emerging in Hong Kong.
While France may proudly claim its historical importance for global democracy,
that is not the case in the People’s Republic of China. So what do the recent struggle in Hong Kong
between many citizens and the PRC government have to say about democracy?
The Umbrella Movement, as it was called
in Hong Kong during its earlier phase, has grown in intensity and publicity
over the past two years. Like the Yellow Vest Movement, it operates consciously
on the principle of refusing
to establish a clearly defined leadership. While this strategy has its
costs, many of which have been emphasized by mainstream commentators and news
reports. But it also has clear advantages tactically, since it has proven
durable and effective at avoiding the attempts of the mainland Chinese government
to shut it down.
One
implication of this year’s Hong Kong protest movement for democracy is that it
demonstrates participatory decision-making by large groups acting under
pressure. Unlike electoral democracies that claim to be efficient and nimble at
responding to threats, many see direct participation as unable to respond
quickly in times of crisis. Yet in our weekly news reports of the Hong Kong
Umbrella Movement we are watching mass participation in decision-making, as recent
participants have remarked. Even Hong Kong elected leaders have found
themselves displaced from leadership roles on the front lines in protests,
and some elected
leaders have left office in order to participate as part of large-group
actions without the taint of elected office.
Another way that leaderless movements
have something to say about democracy is their effectiveness at large scale.
While this may not be obvious in the recent Hong Kong protests, it is clearly the case in the Yellow Vest
movement in France. That movement has demonstrated repeatedly that is can
organize large actions in multiple sites across the entire nation. Once again
the common
criticism of direct participation movements as unable to work at large
scale does not hold water.
In France, a notable character of
the Yellow Vest movement in France has been the participation of many
who were alienated from electoral politics. As inequality has continued to
grow in France under President Macron’s policies, the Yellow Vest movement has
become an important force in standing up to austerity policies. This long-lasting
movement has caught many mainstream commentators by surprise, and the development
has shown it can bring economic wealth gap to the attention of elected leaders.
This carries important implications for electoral democracies that give into
the demands of wealthy elites to maintain (or even worsen) high levels of wealth
inequality. Rather than taking democracy as a reason to pursue the narrow
interests of the wealthy, the Yellow Vest movement demands that elected leaders
respond to those who do not benefit from austerity policies and the resulting
wealth inequalities.
Holding elected leaders accountable
to all is one of the most significant challenges to democracy. While the
election may seem to hold electoral candidates accountable to the views of
voting citizens, after election their accountability is notably weakened. This
is why electoral campaign promises are so rarely fulfilled as advertised. In the Hong Kong protests, the Hong Kong community
members are demanding that the mainland government honor their promises to
treat Hong Kong differently than the rest of mainland China. Only time will
tell if they will be successful in holding the PRC accountable to its promises.
When electoral systems reduce
participants in democratic decision making to small elites, electoral systems risk
the loss of their claim to be democratic. This weakness of accountability to voters
after elections is not a small problem. Since democracy promises a voice to all
in decision making processes, the loss of that decision making power is a
critical event. As Gayatri Spivak has
argued in her essay, “Foucault and
Najibullah,” the removal from citizens of decision-making power means the
end of the democratic freedoms and autonomy that democracy advertises as its
main advantages. As Spivak argues,
democracy claims to be a method of autonomous self-management, where management
is defined not in terms of capitalist efficiency but in terms of autonomous
decision-making for the good of all.
Participating
in decision-making is an important type of what Spivak calls the intuition of
democracy: the habit
of justice for everyone, rather than just self-interest.” (101) When citizens
lose their ability to participate in decisions, democracy dies. Or it revives
in Hong Kong and France, unwilling to allow elected leaders to claim they know
what the people want. And when it comes back to life in the form of leaderless
movements, then democracy has said no to elite leadership. This has its costs,
but also keeps democracy kicking.
