Kapok: Yellow is the new red

In a recent op-ed published in the South China Morning Post, renowned blogger Jason Ng draws an instructive parallel between the on-going Yellow Vests Movement in France and Hong Kong’s 2014 Occupy Movement, also identified as the Umbrella Movement.

Interestingly enough, Jason’s piece can be read under two separate titles. On Jason’s blog, the emphasis is on the balanced examination of the differences and similarities, and the conclusion clearly leans towards aporia: “Same Color, Different Path”. In the Post however, the editor obviously chose to put the stress on the argument that a more “violent” path could have yielded greater results in the case of Hong Kong:  “What France’s ‘yellow vests’ can teach Hong Kong activists about political protests and the use of violence”. Is it an over-interpretation? There is only one certainty: Jason, who happens to be a lawyer, is no violence apologist, quite the contrary!

On the side of similarities, he stresses the identical yellow color (on the umbrella and the safety vests); the key role played by social media in organizing the demos; the lack of a clearly established leadership and thus the “self-organized” attribute of the movements; the same exasperation felt by demonstrators towards traditional elites overly inclined to design pro-(big)business policies; gaping and growing social inequalities, seen, in both cases, as the “deep-rooted economic woes” [in Hong Kong and France] fueling the movements “beneath the surface”; and of course the unexpected character of the whole unravelling, because of the setting, the magnitude and the impact these occurrences are having or have had on their respective communities and far beyond.

On the side of differences, Jason firstly points to violence and rioting in France vs. peaceful resistance and civic disobedience in Hong Kong—politically grounded creative destruction vs. moral high ground; then there is the divide in political culture, with France being credited for being the birthplace of “revolution” and having a long record of regime change brought about by popular uprisings whereas Hong Kong is described as a community primarily concerned by prosperity and stability—hence the difference in popular support; and finally, of course, the dissimilitude of political regimes and accountability, with French decision-makers having to factor popular support if they wish to be (re-)elected whereas Hong Kong governing bodies primarily answer to Beijing and Xi Jinping’s strongman leadership does not seem to encourage constructive responses to pressure coming from the streets.

In this very balanced depiction, the critical difference has more to do with the political setting and who the leaders have to answer to rather than the use of violence and its hypothetical superior “benefits” in terms of results. Popular sovereignty is the key and indeed the whole Occupy Movement was triggered by the extreme frustration at the political reform package backed by the central authorities.

Actually there is an equal feeling of “unfairness” in both cases, something that Jason Ng does not emphasize enough, especially in relation to the “high hope” people had for the reforms that were supposed to be carried out. It is precisely the discrepancy between the expectations and the bitter reality that allowed deep-rooted resentments to surface, in turn further fueling this acute feeling of unfairness.

In Hong Kong, the betrayal originated in the broken promise of universal suffrage. In France, the exasperation is arising from the perceived treachery of a young and untainted president who had pledged after his election to replace the “old world,” the one in which political elites had lost the sense of common good: he is now the “president of the rich”! Indeed, the Yellow Vests map of protests does not correspond to any traditional form of contestation, and beyond the apparent concessions made by the government to restore “social harmony,” it is the temptation of authoritarian populism that is becoming pressing, even more so now that representative bodies, trade unions and political parties alike, have been declared irrelevant by both the sitting government and the protesters. Similar symptoms in different settings, pointing to the same crisis of liberal values!  

Published in Macau Daily Times on December 14, 2018

Kapok: Living together

Being in France just a few days after the horrendous truck attack that took place in the Southern French city of Nice on Bastille Day, claiming the life of 84 people, including many children, compels me to reflect on what makes a society hold together. Confronted with this form of indiscriminate terror and such a feeling of powerlessness, both on the side of society and the public authorities, how can we make sure that this kind of dreadful occurrence will be much less likely to happen in the future, close and distant, bearing in mind that zero risk does not exist? Is the call to unity a requirement or a promise, and in that case what will be its grammar? Will we unite because we need to or because we want to? Do we unite because now is not the time to divide ourselves or because we recognise in each and every member of our community, a “brother” or “sister” who is “equal” in status and in exercising his or her “freedom”? “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”, the three cardinal values of the French Republic.
What is eminently disturbing is the very fact that terrorists, are, somehow and in effect, winning, because these very values are being trampled over.
First, because in a political environment in which emotions rather than reason prevail, the first and foremost reaction is to resort to a blame game. Of a religious or at least communautarian nature, as if Islam at large was conducive to such violence and we were witnessing some form of holy and civilisational war, disregarding the very fact that a third of the 84 victims were themselves Muslims. Of a strictly politicking nature, when local authorities of a certain political orientation (more conservative and security prone) take aim at the national government of another political inclination (roughly speaking, more concerned with individual and civic rights) for failing to anticipate the highly improbable — a heavy vehicle attack is a first in France, and the only equivalent can be found in attacks perpetrated in Jerusalem over light rail stations back in 2014.
Second, because what is for now visible in terms of public policies regarding the prevention of terrorism is almost exclusively related to security. Everybody wants to feel reassured and safe, and safety is for many the very justification of the existence of a state — and we have known that since Thomas Hobbes. But then, the failures of twentieth century revolutionary ideologies have also taught us that “order without life” is tantamount to the “tranquility of the graveyard”, to quote Czech philosopher Jan Patočka, one of the signatories of Charter 77. This is why the Euro Cup organised by France had to take place, even though some strict protective measures were taken, including the now famous but at the time much reviled “fan zones”. And then, now that numerous cultural events are being cancelled on the Riviera — Rihanna’s concert is only one of them — what are the mid- and long-term horizons of security measures? Are we bound, just like it is now happening in Belgium, to not carry bags and not drive our cars to celebrate our National day? Now, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow?
Some voices, more insistent on the meaning of the “islamisation of radicalism”, to use Olivier Roy’s formula, are pointing to the fact that the ideology of Daesh — in whose name all the recent terrorist attacks in France have been conducted — constitutes some form of new transnational utopia, one that offers to “suburban youth a sacralisation of the hatred of society, a hatred resulting from a feeling of social and economic exclusion, injustice and humiliation; and to middle-class youth, an answer to the vacuum of authority, the distaste for oneself or another form of anomia” (Farhad Khosrokhavar).
Education and social economic inclusion will thus be of utmost importance, as rightly emphasised by the European Parliament’s Report on the prevention of radicalisation. Beyond the centres for de-radicalisation that are yet to open in France, nations and communities of people will thus have to rediscover what binds them together, all of them.

Published in Macau Daily Times, July 22nd 2016

KAPOK: Neither One Nor the Other

Being in France at the time of the legislative elections last week acted as a stark reminder of what is missing in our polity here in Macao: good reasons to hope for the best and not only dream of it. Allow me to clarify. In this first round to elect legislators held on June 10th, French citizens were basically being asked about the kind of politics they would like their government to engage into for the next five years, bearing in mind that France, like most countries in Europe, has been confronted with daunting economic difficulties over the past four years. These elections are taking place one month after a new President, François Hollande, a socialist, has been himself elected against the incumbent head of state, Nicolas Sarkozy, a right-winger, and they seem set on sending a left-wing majority to France’s lower assembly, although short of an unstoppable pink-and-red wave — confirmation of the new majority will be secured on the evening of the second round, on June 17th. Among the many reasons why Nicolas Sarkozy was defeated a month ago, his authoritarian, bling-bling and hectic style — or lack thereof— played for sure a crucial role, but it is no doubt his inability to restore economic growth while concurrently allowing for inequalities to reach unprecedented levels since the nineteenth century that brought about his downfall, and all the rhetoric about the risks of changing the captain in the midst of the storm was proven wrong. To my own eyes, and even though I am myself more left-leaning, Nicolas Sarkozy’s policies ultimately conflicted with the core values of his own political tradition: instead of strengthening the idea of an organic national community, division was brought to the fore; efficiency was constantly undermined by frantic changes of orientation that never accommodated appropriate time to bear fruits; and if change (“rupture” as we say in French, meaning breaking away from certain practices and customs) was to be at the center of all politics, it ultimately failed to find its raison d’être thus confirming the African proverb than “when you do not know where you are heading to, you should remember where you are coming from.” Looking now at the legislative elections, the republican right-wing party registered in last Sunday’s first round its lowest score ever (less than 35%) since 1958, therefore confirming the wish for change expressed one month ago. Yet, only 57% of the registered voters did go to polling stations, a turnout that is as well a record-low in the past fifty years and indicates the prevalence of a wait-and-see posture. Now, the National Front, a far-right authority-prone xenophobic political movement has managed to capture some 13.7% of the vote, running on a political platform in which advocacy of protectionism and fear of globalization play the key roles. In this context, the tasks ahead for the new socialist government are formidable: France is the second biggest economy in Europe, but if inflation runs at less than 2.3%, unemployment has now climbed to 10%, economic growth only reached 1.7% last year, public debt hit 85.8% of GDP and public deficit, although receding, 5.2% of GDP — a far cry from Europe’s golden rules. If austerity measures seem to be out of the question in the short run, it seems obvious that public action will only be made possible by increasing revenues (the tax-to-GDP ratio in France is already the 7th highest in Europe) as well as becoming more cost-effective. Economic efficiency, social fairness and overall sustainability of the whole system are at stake. To put it short, the requirement is to move away from quantitative growth to qualitative nurturing at a time of great upheavals. Being deprived of making that choice through an electoral process clearly would have run the risk of getting neither efficiency nor fairness, or at least, to be less idealistic, missing an opportunity to give a trustworthy try at both.

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 14 2012