“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
This statement is great to remember if you’re a physics major, but it doesn’t always hold true in politics. In fact, it is often better for those in power to respond to an action with no action at all.
There is no better proof of this than the situation in Hong Kong today. Although tens of thousands of protestors have joined together in street demonstrations over the past few weeks, they have gained little in terms of democratic governance and true autonomy for Hong Kong.
Why is this happening? Why are protestors coming out in droves over an issue that toppled at least two autocratic regimes in the Middle East with the Arab Spring, only to have no results at all? Here’s why: The Chinese government, in conjunction with the current government in Hong Kong, understands that doing nothing is probably the smartest strategy that they can employ since it has the most potential for success in stifling the protests.
Indeed, they are not alone, for this strategy actually comes right from a playbook that was once very close to home for Americans. It’s the exact same strategy Laurie Pritchett used that helped to stifle the civil rights movement back in the 1960s.
So who was Laurie Pritchett? He was the police chief in Albany, Georgia, during the height of the civil rights movement. Having studied Martin Luther King’s tactics of garnering media attention by having himself arrested and highlighting immoral acts of police brutality, Pritchett was determined not to make the same mistakes. He carefully avoided confronting the protesters and had anonymous donors bail the leaders of the movement out of jail to draw attention away from the protests.
Along with focusing on the order side of law and order in Albany, Pritchett was also assisted by city officials who didn't honor any of the talks or compromises to which they agreed. This stymied King’s efforts. With a lack of media attention and no tangible results, King was forced to move on from Albany.
The Chinese government used strikingly similar tactics in Hong Kong. It carefully avoided harming protestors with police brutality, and it has also tried to limit media attention to the protests through the imposition of extremely strict censorship among the Chinese populace. The Chinese government even replicated Pritchett’s collusion with the legislators in Albany; while promising to meet with protestors one day, the Chinese government has the Hong Kong government call the meeting off the next.
These tactics seem to be having the same effect in Hong Kong as they did in Albany. Just as King had to move past Albany, so has the number of protesters in Hong Kong begun to dwindle as no concrete results have come to fruition. Of course there will be those who continue the struggle for democratic rights in Hong Kong, just as civil rights workers continued to soldier on in Albany after King left. But it seems that for now, China has chosen the effective strategy in following the example of Pritchett. All the protesters can do now is persevere and hope for something drastic to happen.
Reach the columnist at jbrunne2@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @MrAmbassador4
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
