It's a movement not a revolution

Over the past couple of days, the international media has been using the phrase "Umbrella Revolution" to describe the recent events in Hong Kong. From a local point of view, many of us feel a bit strange, and perhaps uncomfortable with that description.

From day one, it was clearly a political game with two groups of political parties, having different ideologies, battling for their respective target audiences in town. Expectations of the current political reform vary among the locals, as they are from different backgrounds. This so-called Umbrella Revolution, however, is nothing more than a normal interest aggregation process, a political game that takes place in democratic societies elsewhere.

The society in Hong Kong is discussing and negotiating the future development of its political system. Therefore, all of the actions that have taken place recently can hardly be described as civil disobedience, but just a standard political game. As the reform might involve changes in the political system, mass demonstrations against or for the reform were probably inevitable.

Conflicts and destruction are within our expectations during the reform period. However, if one considers and defines a political game taking place in a democratic society as a revolution, it may well then twist the original definition of revolution: attempt to overthrow the rule of one government and start a new one. "Umbrella Revolution" is not a revolution. This message is also clearly stated in the participants Facebook accounts, where they call this a "movement". Similarly, I trust most New Yorkers would not have said "Occupy Wall Street" was a revolution, but simply a protest movement for economic equality.

The author is visiting fellow of the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong.

China&US Focus