The Unseen Hand

"The Christian Science Monitor described Sharp as 'the most influential American political figure you've never heard of"

Throughout the protests of 2019, I marvelled at the ingenuity, resourcefulness and flair of the protesters. They appeared capable of constant innovation, shifting their tactics to cause frustrations and embarrassment to the authorities.

Was this accident or by design? It now appears they followed a template provided by American academic Gene Sharp.

Like many other observers, I put much of their success down to youthful vigour and imagination. These traits undoubtedly played a significant role, not least because the kids harnessed social media to amplify their messages. It seemed that the protestors had the government's PR machine outflanked with clever and sophisticated use of the Internet.

Also, it struck me as odd that no one emerged to negotiate with the government. Instead, well-known moderates proved unwilling to come forward — nor did they 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. 

Examining Sharp's book, especially Appendix 1, you can see a template for the events in Hong Kong. Mock funerals, product boycotts, attempts at dual governance are a few examples amongst the 198 actions he recommends. 

Significantly, Sharp opposed any negotiations with governments. He has a whole chapter that argues under no circumstances should protesters meet with the officials to discuss a compromise. Because he asserts, such talks lead to undermining 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. The National Endowment for Democracy gave cash as listed here.

Further, don't forget that in the lead-up to the events of 2019, activists received training overseas. The BBC documented this as the protagonists attended the Oslo Forum. 

The clear dangers in Sharp's thinking are self-evident. First, without the possibility of compromise, protesters enter a struggle of attrition. That's a fool's errand when facing a much superior force. Also, without universal support in the local population and relentless discipline, the movement soon spun out of control with violence and terrorist activity. 

The Arab Spring is an example where Sharp's ideas had adverse consequences. In Egypt, the outcome was a military dictatorship. And as scholars continue to pick over the pieces of 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 has a role in any struggle. The activists in Hong Kong echoed these sentiments. Sharp advocated for the use of attacks to provoke the authorities into taking harsh counter-measures. In addition, protesters can exploit graphic violence by the police and others for propaganda purposes to undermine the government further.

In Hong Kong, creating disorder was the easy part. 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 having 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. 

Throughout, the authorities remained primarily passive, allowing the blockages to continue knowing that the participants couldn't sustain their efforts for too long. The public also grew tired of the inconvenience, which undermined support. 

Leaderless protest looks fine on paper. But, in truth, it is a fanciful concept with no practical use. 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; a lack of control is inevitable and fragmented groups. 

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 strategy.