The Unseen Hand
"In a career spanning four decades, Sharp developed and refined the strategies and tactics used by protesters."
Throughout the 2019 protests, I marvelled at the protesters' ingenuity, resourcefulness, and flair. They appeared capable of constant innovation, shifting tactics to frustrate and embarrass the authorities. Was this by accident or by design? It now appears they followed a template provided by American academic Gene Sharp.
Like many other observers, I attribute much of their success to youthful vigour and imagination. These traits undoubtedly played a significant role, not least because the kids harnessed social media to amplify their messages. The protestors outflanked the government's PR machine with clever and sophisticated Internet use.
Also, it struck me odd that no one emerged to negotiate with the government. Instead, well-known moderates proved unwilling to come forward and did not condemn the violence.
The Christian Science Monitor described Sharp as 'the most influential American political figure you've never heard of". The deceased Harvard professor authored the seminal book on regime change, From Directorship to Democracy. In addition, he is the intellectual weight behind many protest movements, framing his philosophy as a soft coup method that substitutes war.
In a career spanning four decades, Sharp developed and refined the strategies and tactics used by protesters. Left-wing activist Marcie Smith explores Sharp's work, its impact and his motivations here.
While Sharp is often portrayed as a pro-democracy advocate, his motives also point towards a neoliberal free-market agenda supporting big business. Cloaked in the mantle of democracy, Sharp sought to kick open market access.
Sharp's book, primarily Appendix 1, provides a template that mirrors events in Hong Kong. He recommends 198 actions, including mock funerals, product boycotts, and attempts at dual governance.
Significantly, Sharp opposed any negotiations with governments. He has a whole chapter arguing that protesters should not meet with officials to discuss a compromise under any circumstances. He asserts that such talks undermine the ultimate goal of regime change.
I surmise the initiation of the 2019 unrest was spontaneous. Even so, powerful forces were waiting in the wings, ready to exploit the situation; recognising an opportunity, foreign politicians egged on the unrest here. Indeed, the U.S. made no secret of this.
Also, please remember that activists received training overseas before the 2019 events. The BBC documented this exchange of ideas as the protagonists attended the Oslo Forum.
Sharp's thinking clearly poses dangers. First, without the possibility of compromise, protesters enter a struggle of attrition, which is a fool's errand when facing a much superior force. Second, without universal support from the local population and relentless discipline, the movement soon spiralled out of control with violence and terrorist activity.
The Arab Spring exemplifies how Sharp's ideas had adverse consequences. In Egypt, the outcome was a military dictatorship. As scholars continue to reconstruct that struggle, what is certain is that the results weren't beneficial, as much of the Arab world is less stable.
Even though Sharp spoke of nonviolence, he acknowledged that brute force plays a role in any struggle. The activists in Hong Kong echoed these sentiments. Sharp advocated using attacks to provoke the authorities into taking harsh countermeasures. In addition, protesters can exploit graphic violence by the police and others for propaganda purposes to further undermine the government.
In Hong Kong, creating disorder was easy. But this soon escalated out of control, morphing into an attempted insurrection with the assault on our parliament. This was bound to happen with a leaderless movement with no clear direction, prone to miscalculations and fragmentation. And so it proved.
The 2014 Occupy Central movement foreshadowed this failure. Professor Benny Tai planned that exercise in civil disobedience. Tai derided as an ideas man with no practical leadership experience, was forced to start the occupation early. He soon left the scene, running back to his office at Hong Kong University, leaving mayhem on the streets. The occupiers lingered for 79 days before finally disappearing with a whimper.
The authorities remained primarily passive. They knew the participants could only sustain their efforts for a while. The public also grew tired of the inconvenience, which undermined support.
Leaderless protests look good on paper but are a fanciful concept with no practical use. Sure, the idea prevents the authorities from targeting the movement's leaders to decapitate the organisation. But then again, it is nearly impossible to sustain an effort, and a lack of control is inevitable as groups fragment. And, again, who does the government negotiate with to reach an amicable solution?
Gene Sharp died in 2018. But, no doubt, his ideas will likely continue to shape how protesters behave. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, China has applied its antidote with the implementation of NSL. It is tough medicine and a harsh lesson for the naive kids caught up in a futile struggle.
May 2020
Like many other observers, I attribute much of their success to youthful vigour and imagination. These traits undoubtedly played a significant role, not least because the kids harnessed social media to amplify their messages. The protestors outflanked the government's PR machine with clever and sophisticated Internet use.
Also, it struck me odd that no one emerged to negotiate with the government. Instead, well-known moderates proved unwilling to come forward and did not condemn the violence.
The Christian Science Monitor described Sharp as 'the most influential American political figure you've never heard of". The deceased Harvard professor authored the seminal book on regime change, From Directorship to Democracy. In addition, he is the intellectual weight behind many protest movements, framing his philosophy as a soft coup method that substitutes war.
In a career spanning four decades, Sharp developed and refined the strategies and tactics used by protesters. Left-wing activist Marcie Smith explores Sharp's work, its impact and his motivations here.
While Sharp is often portrayed as a pro-democracy advocate, his motives also point towards a neoliberal free-market agenda supporting big business. Cloaked in the mantle of democracy, Sharp sought to kick open market access.
Sharp's book, primarily Appendix 1, provides a template that mirrors events in Hong Kong. He recommends 198 actions, including mock funerals, product boycotts, and attempts at dual governance.
Significantly, Sharp opposed any negotiations with governments. He has a whole chapter arguing that protesters should not meet with officials to discuss a compromise under any circumstances. He asserts that such talks undermine the ultimate goal of regime change.
I surmise the initiation of the 2019 unrest was spontaneous. Even so, powerful forces were waiting in the wings, ready to exploit the situation; recognising an opportunity, foreign politicians egged on the unrest here. Indeed, the U.S. made no secret of this.
Also, please remember that activists received training overseas before the 2019 events. The BBC documented this exchange of ideas as the protagonists attended the Oslo Forum.
Sharp's thinking clearly poses dangers. First, without the possibility of compromise, protesters enter a struggle of attrition, which is a fool's errand when facing a much superior force. Second, without universal support from the local population and relentless discipline, the movement soon spiralled out of control with violence and terrorist activity.
The Arab Spring exemplifies how Sharp's ideas had adverse consequences. In Egypt, the outcome was a military dictatorship. As scholars continue to reconstruct that struggle, what is certain is that the results weren't beneficial, as much of the Arab world is less stable.
Even though Sharp spoke of nonviolence, he acknowledged that brute force plays a role in any struggle. The activists in Hong Kong echoed these sentiments. Sharp advocated using attacks to provoke the authorities into taking harsh countermeasures. In addition, protesters can exploit graphic violence by the police and others for propaganda purposes to further undermine the government.
In Hong Kong, creating disorder was easy. But this soon escalated out of control, morphing into an attempted insurrection with the assault on our parliament. This was bound to happen with a leaderless movement with no clear direction, prone to miscalculations and fragmentation. And so it proved.
The 2014 Occupy Central movement foreshadowed this failure. Professor Benny Tai planned that exercise in civil disobedience. Tai derided as an ideas man with no practical leadership experience, was forced to start the occupation early. He soon left the scene, running back to his office at Hong Kong University, leaving mayhem on the streets. The occupiers lingered for 79 days before finally disappearing with a whimper.
The authorities remained primarily passive. They knew the participants could only sustain their efforts for a while. The public also grew tired of the inconvenience, which undermined support.
Leaderless protests look good on paper but are a fanciful concept with no practical use. Sure, the idea prevents the authorities from targeting the movement's leaders to decapitate the organisation. But then again, it is nearly impossible to sustain an effort, and a lack of control is inevitable as groups fragment. And, again, who does the government negotiate with to reach an amicable solution?
Gene Sharp died in 2018. But, no doubt, his ideas will likely continue to shape how protesters behave. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, China has applied its antidote with the implementation of NSL. It is tough medicine and a harsh lesson for the naive kids caught up in a futile struggle.
May 2020
Copyright © 2015