As someone who has lived and breathed the complex political landscape of Hong Kong, I’ve often been asked why the city has made little to no progress politically since the Umbrella Revolution. To answer this, I must unpack the underlying reasons, which stem not only from external pressures but from internal contradictions and historical baggage that have rendered Hong Kong politically adrift.
The Uncertain Demands of the People
The first and most glaring issue lies in the ambiguity of the demands made by Hongkongers.
Are they fighting for full independence from China, or do they simply seek a continuation of the “one country, two systems” framework established during the 1997 handover? The lack of clarity has been a significant stumbling block.
During the Umbrella Revolution, the protestors called for “genuine universal suffrage” and the right to nominate their own candidates for the Chief Executive election. However, beyond these demands, there was no unified vision for Hong Kong’s political future.
Many Hongkongers harbor a peculiar nostalgia for British colonial rule, clinging to the hope that the United Kingdom might somehow intervene to preserve the city’s semi-autonomous status. This delusion ignores geopolitical realities. The British government no longer has the leverage or inclination to interfere in Hong Kong’s affairs, and the world’s focus has shifted elsewhere.
Despite this, the sentiment persists, further muddying the waters of what Hong Kong’s people actually want.
This lack of direction was painfully evident during the Umbrella Revolution. Protesters occupied the streets, raising umbrellas as symbols of resistance, but their slogans and messages often contradicted one another. Some demanded outright independence, a stance that is not only politically impractical but also dangerous given Beijing’s hardline stance on sovereignty.
Others merely wanted reforms within the existing framework, believing that “one country, two systems” could be salvaged if only Beijing’s promises were honored. Without a clear, unified goal, the movement was destined to falter, and the momentum dissipated as quickly as it had arisen.
The inherent ambiguity of these demands also created rifts within the movement itself. Different factions of protestors were unable to agree on their ultimate objectives, leading to infighting and fragmentation. This lack of cohesion made it easier for external forces to exploit the divisions, further weakening the movement’s effectiveness. Protest leaders often tried to paper over these cracks, but the underlying tensions were too deep to ignore.
Adding to the uncertainty was the generational divide among Hongkongers.
Older generations, who lived through both British colonial rule and the early years of the handover, often had a more pragmatic view of Hong Kong’s political future. They tended to favor a cautious approach, emphasising economic stability over political upheaval. Younger protestors, however, were more idealistic, demanding radical changes without fully considering the long-term consequences.
This generational schism further complicated the movement’s ability to articulate a clear and unified vision.
Another significant factor is the myth of political differences perpetuated by the so-called “leaders” of the revolution.
The Lies of “Political Differences”
Western media played significant roles by romanticised figures like Joshua Wong and Nathan Law, painting them as freedom fighters battling against an oppressive regime. While their rhetoric has resonated internationally, it has done little to address the realities on the ground in Hong Kong.
The truth is, those names above so called leaders are not representatives of the working-class Hongkongers who struggle daily with skyrocketing housing prices, stagnant wages, and a lack of social mobility.
Instead, they belong to a privileged bourgeoisie class that benefited immensely from Hong Kong’s status as a British colony and later as a global financial hub. Their primary concern is not the betterment of Hong Kong for its workers but the preservation of their own outdated privileges.
Under British rule, Hong Kong’s elites enjoyed a unique position as intermediaries between East and West, profiting from the city’s role as a free-market hub. This legacy has shaped the current leadership of the protest movements, who often frame their struggle as one of democracy versus authoritarianism.
However, this framing ignores the fact that these leaders are more invested in maintaining Hong Kong’s neoliberal economic structure than in addressing systemic inequalities or workers’ rights.
For the average Hongkonger, the daily grind of making ends meet remains unchanged, whether under British or Chinese rule. The so-called “democratic leaders” have failed to articulate a vision for a Hong Kong that prioritises social welfare, affordable housing, and labor rights.
Instead, they have focused on abstract ideals of freedom and democracy, which, while important, do not resonate with those who are more concerned about their immediate livelihoods.
The disconnect between the protest leaders and the working class is particularly glaring when examining the economic realities of Hong Kong.
The city has one of the highest income inequality rates in the world, with a significant portion of its population living in substandard housing. Yet, these issues are rarely addressed in the political discourse dominated by the protest leaders. Instead, the focus remains on ideological battles with Beijing, which, while important, fail to address the pressing needs of ordinary citizens.
This ideological myopia has also alienated potential allies within Hong Kong and beyond.
By framing the struggle solely in terms of democracy versus authoritarianism, the protest leaders have ignored the broader spectrum of political and social issues that resonate with a wider audience. This narrow focus has limited the movement’s appeal, both domestically and internationally, making it easier for Beijing to dismiss their demands as illegitimate.
Stockholm Syndrome in Colonialism
However, for me personally, one critical issue that blatantly visible during the series of protests are the Stockholm Syndrome that pervades Hong Kong’s collective consciousness.
Under British colonial rule, Hongkongers were denied any form of democratic representation, yet many look back on this era with nostalgia. This phenomenon is rooted in a deep psychological association with the colonial power that once governed them.
During the colonial era, Hongkongers were taught to associate progress and modernity with British rule. English became the language of the elite, and British cultural norms were seen as aspirational. Over time, this created a psychological dependency that persists to this day. Many Hongkongers view their colonial past as a golden age, conveniently forgetting the systemic inequalities and lack of political representation that characterised British governance.
This colonial hangover manifests in the way some Hongkongers perceive themselves and their culture.
They adopt Western ideals and values, often to the exclusion of their Chinese heritage. This identity crisis has created a rift within the city, with some embracing their Chinese identity while others vehemently reject it. The latter group’s disdain for anything associated with Mainland China further complicates Hong Kong’s political dynamics, making it difficult to foster a cohesive vision for the future.
The psychological scars of colonialism are also evident in the way Hongkongers interact with each other and with the world.
Those who romanticize British rule often look down upon their fellow citizens who embrace their Chinese identity, creating a cultural hierarchy that mirrors the colonial mindset. This internalised colonialism has further fragmented Hong Kong’s society, making it even harder to build a unified political movement.
The economic legacy of colonialism has also played a role in shaping Hong Kong’s political dynamics.
Under British rule, the city was developed as a free-market hub, with little regard for social welfare or workers’ rights. This neoliberal economic model has persisted, creating a deeply unequal society where the rich enjoy unparalleled privileges while the poor struggle to survive. The protest leaders’ failure to address these economic inequalities is a direct result of their colonial mindset, which prioritises individual freedoms over collective welfare.
Adding to this complexity is the role of education in shaping Hong Kong’s collective memory.
The colonial-era curriculum emphasised British history and values while downplaying Chinese culture and heritage. This educational bias has left a lasting impact on generations of Hongkongers, many of whom continue to view their colonial past as a time of prosperity and progress. This distorted view of history has made it harder for Hong Kong to reconcile its past with its present, further complicating its political future.
The cultural impact of colonialism is also evident in Hong Kong’s arts and media. British cultural norms continue to dominate, from the prevalence of English-language media to the celebration of Western holidays and traditions. This cultural dominance has marginalised local traditions and practices, creating a sense of alienation among those who identify more closely with their Chinese heritage. This cultural disconnect has further fragmented Hong Kong’s society, making it even harder to build a cohesive political movement.
Epilogue
As a migrant who lives and breathing the city life, it becomes clear that Hong Kong’s political stagnation is not just the result of external pressures from Beijing. I strongly believes that those three reasons I mentioned above are deeply rooted in its own internal contradictions and historical baggage. The city’s people must confront these issues head-on if they are to chart a path forward.
Until then, Hong Kong will remain politically adrift, a city caught between its past and an uncertain future.
Share this content: