The Umbrella Movement

Recent literature describes the shift from peaceful pro-democratic nature to more radical pro-independent nature under the Umbrella Movement. There is the historical context of Hong Kong citizenship and its unique identity, the reluctance of the government in responding to the demands of movement leaders, and economic turbulence that exists between Hong Kong and mainland China. The important factor mentioned by Che-po Chan about Umbrella Movement is that it is primarily a student movement despite its initial preparation by two university professors and one reverend. Thus, Chan compared it to other student movements that manifest idealism, in essence, thus pursuing justice, general social interests, welfare for various social groups and other objectives grounded on idealistic values as from coursework writing service

Generally, the fact that demonstrations were mostly carried out by secondary school and the university is explained by the shift of political opinion among two generations. On one hand, there were well-established activists concerned with the spillover of Hong Kong democratization; on the othr hand, there were younger generations concerned with preserving Hong Kong’s distinct identity. Scientific researchers use this generational divide to explain why peaceful intentions to seek for open and transparent elections led to emerging localism and radicalism in methods employed of the leaders and participants in a post-Umbrella Movement period.

Social scientific literature roots Umbrella Movement to previous pro-democratic efforts undertaken in different periods of China’s social and political development. The most common example used by researchers is the Tiananmen Movement of 1989, which was compared with Umbrella Movement by Johan Lagerkvist and Tim Ruhlig from the cost-benefit perspective as well as the social impact and objectives. The common reason described for both movements was severe economic challenges, such as rising inflation, corruption, discontent with a state-directed choice of occupation, and soaring food prices in the end 1980s, and over-proportionally rising costs, including housing costs, in Hong Kong. Authors also discussed that in both cases students aimed to protect their privileges, while this view is somewhat debatable for the case of Tiananmen Movement. Importantly, Lagerkvist and Ruhlig admitted that Hong Kong students also faced increasing performance pressure from qualified Mainland students, confirmed by the significant increase in the Mainland Chinese undergraduate enrollment during last decade.

On the other hand, Lagerkvist and Ruhlig mentioned that materialist incentives are the only common thing shared by both movements. Specifically, they concluded that the Umbrella Movement is a local protest targeted towards self-determination and identity rather than national movement aimed to improve economic and social conditions of the country. The reasoning of movement leaders is explained by the social and economic challenges raised after integration of the Mainland China and Special Administration Region (SAR). These problems included relaxation of money flow controls from China that allowed Hong Kong property market speculation or higher trust in product quality in Hong Kong which increases Chinese tourism and smuggling leading to overall increase in living costs. On these factors, researchers admitted that young protesters tend to disassociate themselves from the Mainland Chinese, often calling oneself “Hong Kong Chinese” or “Hong Kong person”. Consistently, Kwan mentioned that the demand for universal suffrage during the forthcoming elections in 2017 was dictated not purely by political considerations for real democracy and adherence to the “one country, two systems” guarantee of the Hong Kong autonomy. Instead, there were deeper motives that describe the cultural identity of the Hong Kong youth and its idealistic view of the non-intervention of Mainland China in their social, economic, and political affairs.

Unlike previous protests, the Umbrella Movement is described as a mass demonstration that gradually acquired more than a million of followers across three districts. The growth along with the transformation of the movement ideology is described by researchers in the context of communication methods used by protesters during the 79 days. For instance, Pauline Luk concluded that movement kept alive and growing because of the extensive use of mobile and Internet networks, allowing protesters to function as connected individuals and openly communicate their raising concerns.

Tai Wei Lim also discussed the importance of songs and umbrellas used by protesters to confirm their initially peaceful intentions of finding the dialogue with SAR administration, suggesting that with a more intense opposition, these friendly elements were gradually removing from news reports. Aditi Bhatia also specified that the hard-handedness of the police forces was broadly criticized, while the necessity of student boycotts was primarily supported by the press, suggesting that the Umbrella Movement received support outside of student communities as well. However, Kwon objected this view concluding that the most mainstream media organizations took the anti-movement standpoint, practicing censorship to avoid offense from the Beijing. Consequently, the Umbrella Movement is seen as the protest that was injected by additional means to express the need for change, which could be considered as another motivation to emphasize the goal of independence from Mainland China.

Scholars discussed later stages of the Umbrella Movement concerning a distinct form of civil disobedience, characterized by enhanced local and radical behaviors. For instance, Francis L.F. Lee argued that transformation of the Umbrella Movement objectives brought in the educational function that improved public understanding of civil disobedience through actual participation, previously mentioned the political use of social media and discussions with disagreeing others.

Interestingly, Chia-Ming Chen suggested that civil disobedience only makes sense in a democratic constitutional order, which is not the case of Hong Kong political regime. On the burden of the past ‘color revolutions’ worldwide, Chen suggested that civil disobedience in the case of Umbrella Movement should be seen as “legitimacy-building and regime-transformative” power, relying to its rationale and adherence to the rule of law. The other researchers describe the structural elements used as methods in demonstrating civil disobedience in this new form. Localism and radicalism are defined as the primary methods used by protestors during the final stages and post-Umbrella movement periods. For instance, Ruhlig identified to forms of localism emerged during the movement, the progressive localism aimed at a postcolonial Hong Kong identity like preserving old neighborhoods, and xenophobic localism, targeted to immigrants and tourists accused of raising costs for daily necessities. In his turn, Chan specified that radicalism, in this case, is learning from experience, which enabled students to give up moderate and peaceful means after no initial reaction from the government, switching to the radical shock tactics of Taiwan students during the Sunflower Movement. A consolidated opinion voiced by Chan is that protesters who were disappointed with the results of Umbrella Movement assumed the combined tactics of radical localism aimed against the assimilation or neo-imperialist policy of Beijing against Hong Kong.

As the literature suggests, the Umbrella Movement is a very controversial political act that encompasses stable social, political and economic reasons behind its establishment and transformation of ideals. The most significant reason for this change is seen in the continuous rivalry between the Hong Kong and Mainland China since 1997 when the active integration of SAR into Chinese economy has started. Thus, above the reactional nature that led to the radical localism, it is important to consider the role of cultural identity on top of grievance of the Hong Kong youth.