The Western media have dubbed "Occupy Central" as the "umbrella revolution". The Economist produced an editorial in the week of Oct 4 called: "The Party v the people". From the perspective of Western mainstream media what happened in Hong Kong, a special administrative region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China (PRC), last week will be remembered in history as an Eastern Europe-style "color revolution".

In view of the fact that "Occupy" has failed to pressure Beijing into changes in the SAR's constitutional development, they depict it as the start of a lasting struggle in the city. Against this backdrop, many commentators chose one particular slogan out of scores if not hundreds the "occupiers" used: "Hongkonger! Hongkonger!" One commentator, Alan Chin, told Reuters on Sept 30 that "when the demonstrators chant 'Hongkonger!' they are asserting that to be a citizen of Hong Kong is emphatically not the same as being Chinese."

Here in Hong Kong, some of those sold on Western ideology, such as an editor of South China Morning Post, described "Occupy" in a commentary on Oct 1 as, "a turning point for democracy in the city".

If I remember correctly, the "Occupy" campaign, according to its organizers, is all about "real universal suffrage"; and they have been intently challenging the central government over what they see as the creation of "fake universal suffrage" within the framework laid down by the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC). What they have done now is to convince those commentators "Occupy" is about some kind of collective identity rather than "true democracy"? In my opinion it is about neither.

First, Hong Kong's democratization has been interconnected with the city's transformation from a British "colony" into an SAR ever since 1984, when London suddenly unveiled a plan to introduce Western-style democracy into the city shortly before signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The original goal of this was to secure a chance for the future "pan-democrats" to at least share the governance of the HKSAR after the handover, and ultimately take over the office of Chief Executive through democratic elections. So the Economist editorial is not far off from capturing the essence of what "Occupy" is really about.

The newspaper failed to tell its readers, however, that "Occupy" cannot speak for the majority of Hongkongers on either universal suffrage or collective identity. The reality is that more than 17 years after the handover, Hong Kong residents of Chinese descent are evidently divided over their perception of whether or not they are Chinese citizens. Hence, there is a clear division between those who support the opposition and those who back the "Love the Nation and Hong Kong" camp. So a more accurate description of the situation, rather than "Hong Kong people vs the central government", might be "the opposition and its supporters attempt to provoke Beijing by disrupting society".

"One Country, Two Systems" is a constitutional arrangement defining the relationship between the SAR and the nation. Many Hongkongers accustomed to the city's existing way of life and governance neglect the "One Country" part. Instead, they focus on "Two Systems". This is exactly what the opposition and its foreign benefactors want.

The events of 2003 marked a significant turn both in the practice and understanding of "One Country, Two Systems". Economically, Hongkongers cannot deny that the city relies increasingly on the mainland for business. But politically there are many who still wish Western-style democracy would prevail in the mainland as well as Hong Kong.

So, fundamental contradictions between the opposition and the government are deteriorating. A decisive battle is now taking place in the city. What the "Occupy" and anti-"Occupy" camps are really fighting for is the ideological dominance of the SAR.

This leads to the second point, of no lesser importance - from a historical perspective, "Occupy" may appear as just another battle in the struggle between the West and China over an "ideal" political system. But it really bears all the hallmarks of the "clash of civilizations".

Predictably, any "Occupy" actions under the banner of "civil disobedience" are doomed to fail.

In the long term, the SAR has to be integrated with the mainland not only economically but also politically. The reason it is so difficult for political unity to co-exist with economic integration is that many Hongkongers still believe in Western ideology and the opposition camp appears to have foreign influences.

After "Occupy", Hong Kong will undergo fundamental changes. "One Country, Two Systems" will enter a new stage. Eventually, the majority of Hong Kong people will realize and accept that the "One Country" is the foundation of the "Two Systems". It is essential to accept the painful process of fusing the different systems together. For Hong Kong it is not only part of its own development, but also part of its contribution to realizing the "Chinese Dream".

The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 10/08/2014 page7)