A dvocates and supporters of "Occupy Central" have been tirelessly defending the illegal movement since the day its three initiators published the exceptionally long "manifesto" extolling the virtue of "civil disobedience" in the name of "true democracy". After nearly two months of dogged occupation of several important public thoroughfares in three business and shopping districts, and now under increasing pressure from an unhappy public, they must have realized their no-holds-barred hype is driving more people away instead of drawing them closer to the doomed cause. It is doubtless evident that the protesters do not represent the majority of Hong Kong residents.

The greatest mistake made by the "masterminds" of "Occupy", in my opinion, is to trust that all-time favorite mantra of political power grabbers - the end justifies the means - without knowing if the public are willing to be their sacrificial lamb. In a maturing free society such as Hong Kong, to assume most people would support a movement intended to inconvenience them, simply because it is packaged with fashionable labels, is naive. If they were to revisit their history books now they would have no problem understanding that "Occupy" is further proof that the means can just as easily ruin the end, and indeed often has, far too often than they would find comfortable.

The history of civilization is littered with examples of the means destroying the end because the parties involved took the idea literally and in too simplistic a fashion.

It is safe to say human society was able to evolve to its current state because most people learned enough lessons from the disasters resulting from blind faith. But opportunists tend to be the exception. As a matter of fact, the masterminds and organizers of the ongoing illegal "Occupy" movement are a perfect example of "trusting the devil".

Although "Occupy" managed to hoodwink certain innocent young students into joining the ill-motivated, self-indulgent political campaign with its misleading label of "civil disobedience", there is little doubt it has been the victim of its own deficiencies from the beginning. As an elaborate attempt to win "equal rights" for all Hong Kong people in political decision-making by "peaceful protest", it was expected to easily draw upon overwhelming public support. In truth, however, it has done exactly the opposite. The protesters can deny it all they want but cannot hide the cold, simple fact: They do not have the necessary popular support. Why has their publicity deluge failed to sweep enough people to their side, one may ask?

For starters, the masterminds and organizers of "Occupy" have yet to convince enough Hong Kong people that the electoral system they so conveniently labeled "true democracy" or "real universal suffrage" will ultimately fix the "deeper problems" slowly tearing our society apart, not the least the perceived "government-big business collusion to exploit the masses". They seriously shouldn't have raised this deep subject without giving people reason to believe they had what it took to fulfill such a tall order.

They should have explained why none of the mature Western democracies has been able to pull off a similar feat and how their brand of "true democracy" can and will. It would definitely have helped if they could also have thrown light on the disappointment that the mighty United States has yet to solve those "deeper problems" commonly found in capitalist societies after more than two centuries of democratic development.

Then they would have been able to assure everyone here that a Chief Executive (CE) elected by "real" universal suffrage would be able to accomplish the impossible in Hong Kong.

I would not be at all surprised if their spin-doctors around the world never realize that the US cannot do it because it does not have "real" democracy, but I am amazed they sound quite convinced Hong Kong should give "Occupy" a chance at all costs. They must have asked themselves numerous times, "who doesn't hate government-big business collusion to exploit the masses?" But I seriously doubt that they had actually planned on doing something about it, even if "real" universal suffrage was to have one of their own in the CE's office, without assuring the public that those big businesses would never have left Hong Kong no matter what happened.

Another huge mistake on the part of the protesters is their casual dismissal of the rule of law in the context of their illegal behavior versus public interest. Throughout the process of preparing for "Occupy" the masterminds of the illegal movement failed to convince the masses (not their followers and cheerleaders, however) that hurting some people's personal interests and denying the basic rights of many more while threatening Hong Kong's stability in violation of existing laws was the only way to achieve "real" universal suffrage.

What they did tell the public was that they had the right to break the law because the existing statutory system does not give them a chance to run for the top government post. None of them bothered to explain why the public must suffer in order to satisfy their political ambitions or if they will ever repay the victims in a tangible fashion. Neither have they promised this kind of abuse will never happen again should "real" universal suffrage be achieved. But of course they are unable to make such promises. It would mean they were above the law on their own whim, the first and last to enjoy this privilege.

The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 11/14/2014 page10)