Self-proclaimed democratic activists around the world are increasingly turning to undemocratic means to accomplish their goals. Protesters are occupying public squares, taking over government buildings, and making threats of violence -- veiled and direct -- in order to overthrow popularly elected governments.

The latest incident happened on May 22 when the Thai military overthrew the government two weeks after its prime minister had been ousted by a court ruling. In Ukraine, the president was forced to flee the country after Euromaidan protesters occupied a square, took over public buildings, and threatened armed resistance. In Egypt the first elected president in the post-Arab Spring era was overthrown by the military after just over one year in office. In each of these cases, the protesters had legitimate grievances: Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych were both corrupt and intent on expanding executive power. Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was a radical religious fundamentalist. But political debates in those countries should have been settled at the ballot box, where changes can be made peacefully and supporters of all sides have a chance to have their voices heard.

Instead, these protesters are forcing their positions on the public by taking over government property, outlawing opposition parties, threatening violence, and holding sham referendums to subvert the will of the people. The Thai coup was the second military coup in eight years. In 2006, Yingluck's brother, Thaksin, was overthrown and then fled the country after the "yellow shirt" protesters occupied the streets. His populist party won large majorities in parliament with support from the rural poor, and, despite his party being dissolved twice by the courts, the reincarnations of his party continued to win elections. Rather than contest elections planned for this spring, the anti-government People's Democratic Reform Committee and its supporters boycotted the elections and shut down some of the polling sites, rendering the results invalid. In Ukraine the Euromaidan protesters surrounded their public square protest site with barricades and burning buses. After forcing their way into government buildings, local parliaments in Ivano-Frankivsk and Ternopil outlawed the elected Party of Regions. Likewise, Morsi's party, the Muslim Brotherhood, was banned in Egypt.

In June, this democratic theatre tour makes a stop in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is different in that the objectives of the protesters aren't to overthrow the government but to ensure that the 2017 chief executive election allows for a wide range of candidates on the ballot. Still, they are using undemocratic tactics. The pan-democratic group Occupy Central plans to hold an SAR-wide referendum on the weekend of June 20 regarding their proposals for universal suffrage. They couldn't have picked a better time, just after Russian thugs held sham referendums for separatism in Western Ukraine.

The results of Occupy Central's vote are already pre-determined. All three of the proposals on the ballot call for civic nominations in the 2017 Hong Kong chief executive election. That Hong Kong residents will be allowed to vote on the chief executive in 2017 is a given; the debate is now over how candidates will be nominated for the general election. Occupy Central's insistence on allowing civic nominations by a sufficient number of voters shows they aren't willing to engage in that debate. The Hong Kong Bar Association says that civic nominations are incompatible with Hong Kong's Basic Law, which calls for nomination by a representative committee. Even fellow pan-democrats who once backed Occupy Central are disappointed that moderate proposals were eliminated from their referendum.

The three options for their ballot were selected at a May 6 deliberation day by 2,500 fervent activists who have all pledged to occupy the streets if their proposals aren't adopted. Hong Kong 2020, a more moderate pan-democratic group, said the "relatively small and unrepresentative group of political activists has effectively disenfranchised a large section of the community." The Alliance for True Democracy responded by planning their own poll that asks about a wider range of proposals.

Occupy Central's referendum was supposed to legitimize their planned occupation of Central. If the public has no choice to begin with, the vote can't be reflective of the public's view. On the contrary, a majority of the Hong Kong public opposed Occupy Central in a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at the Chinese University in June 2013. A survey by Ming Pao and the Public Opinion Programme at the University of Hong Kong in January 2014 also found a majority opposed to Occupy Central.

Under any form of government, there will always be people who disagree with the government's policies. By our nature, we all have differing opinions. In a democratic government, political legitimacy is derived by public electoral support, not by radical demands made by threats.

Mitchell Blatt is the producer of ChinaTravelWriter.com and an editor at a map magazine in Nanjing.

Opinion articles reflect the author's own opinion, not necessarily that of China.org.cn.

Related

• Ukraine to compensate families of anti-gov't protest victims
• 50 implicated in Ukraine's protest massacre
• Thailand's protest co-leader detained on insurrection charges

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)