Hong Kong Tragedy: An Analysis of the Failure of the Hong Kong Revolution
Hong Kong Tragedy: An Analysis of the Failure of the Hong Kong Revolution
By Carl J Chan
The protests of 2019–2020, often referred to as the Hong Kong Revolution, represented one of the largest democratic movements in modern Chinese history. At its peak, more than one million Hong Kong residents demonstrated peacefully in the streets. However, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) undermined the movement by infiltrating demonstrations with provocateurs and subsequently using state-controlled media to portray the protesters as violent radicals. This narrative was disseminated to the 1.4 billion people in mainland China, who were systematically persuaded to believe that Hong Kong citizens threatened social order.
It is important to recognize that the erosion of Hong Kong’s democracy was not sudden but the result of a gradual strategy. The CCP’s initial step was the systematic takeover of Hong Kong’s media landscape, accompanied by the planting of informants and agents of influence. By controlling the flow of information, Beijing laid the foundation for its broader project of political domination.
Historically, Hong Kong had developed one of the most advanced civic education systems in the world. Television, radio, and other licensed media outlets were required to contribute to society through public service advertisements. These advertisements promoted ethical citizenship by addressing issues such as anti-corruption measures, traffic safety, vocational training, home maintenance, and public health. For decades, this system contributed to a uniquely civic-minded and law-abiding population, distinguishing Hong Kong as a model of media responsibility and social consciousness.
The collapse of Hong Kong’s democratic aspirations marks a profound tragedy in world history. For decades, the city had symbolized the potential dawn of democracy for the Chinese-speaking world. After the 1997 handover to China, Hong Kong’s government, religious organizations, and wealthy citizens provided substantial assistance to mainland development, including the establishment of “Hope Primary Schools” across the country. Ironically, the goodwill and resources extended by Hong Kong helped strengthen the very state apparatus that later curtailed its freedoms.
At a deeper level, this tragedy reflects a broader cultural challenge within China. The absence of sustained cultural self-criticism, combined with widespread political passivity, has created what may be described as a “boiling frog” phenomenon—a populace gradually acclimated to authoritarian encroachment without recognizing the danger until too late.
The motivations of Hong Kong’s youth during the protests cannot be reduced to abstract ideals of democracy alone. For many, the struggle was fundamentally about survival. The CCP’s “Individual Visit Scheme” opened Hong Kong to millions of mainland tourists, overwhelming the small territory’s resources. Essential goods such as infant formula became scarce due to mass cross-border purchasing. Simultaneously, political influence from northern China deepened, while the government and financial elites controlled land supply. In one of the world’s wealthiest cities, young people faced despair in the face of soaring housing costs and diminishing social mobility.
Revolutions, whether successful or unsuccessful, leave lasting legacies. The failure of the Hong Kong movement underscores the formidable power of authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent, yet it also demonstrates the resilience of democratic aspirations. In the long arc of history, decades or even centuries may prove to be short intervals in the struggle for human freedom. The lessons of Hong Kong thus remain relevant not only to China but to all societies confronting the tension between authoritarian control and democratic ideals.
