Hi Todd, That's OK...No offence taken, no offence intended.It isn't merely an academic exercise I am pursuing here in posing the question. There are hundreds of thousands of young people in Hong Kong, being urged by certain organisations and individuals, including the western powers and media, as well as internal political groupings; to take on the Chinese state by occupying some of the buildings belonging to the administration and governance, as well as taking over the streets. And it is being done in the name of democracy and pursuing a democratic practice, which doesn't exist in the Western democracies, in my humble opinion, far less in China, to be sold to these demonstrators.
The demonstrations have already been declared illegal by the Chinese state and the Hong Kong executive, as permission to demonstrate was not asked for by those people and organisations who organised it, and the people have taken over the streets. mainly in the financial district. So far the Hong Kong and Chinese governments have held back, with a few confrontations and arrests going on here and there, and the use of tear gas, and the other weapons of mass control to be used.
Every excuse has being given for the Chinese and Hong Kong administration to use force, to arrest the perpetrators, the leadership...and no doubt all those young faces which appear in the western media, as well as on mobile phones etc... will be sifted and sorted, people categorised for use later, in prosecutions or for detainment. And you can rest assured that the Chinese state will be amassing its forces to do its own occupation of Hong Kong if necessary. One has only to look at the US forces taking over the British colony of Grenada after they rebelled under Ronald Reagan, to get the point.
Personally, I am not opposed to the "Occupy Movement". In fact I quite welcome it, as demonstrations by masses of people where and when necessary help to re-inforce the arguments being made for greater autonomy, democracy and financial, economic and social responsibility. I am not necessarily opposed to "illegal" demonstrations either. At times they are necessary to bring a stubborn and dictatorial regime to account...along with other forms of resistance, alliances with forces for change. But there is a corollary to it, a qualification to that support, in that one should be aware, there are other forces who and which are quite happy for things to remain as they are, the more conservative and financial elements who don't take kindly to their businesses being affected, particularly if it happens for more than a week, and the politicians, throughout the world, who subsist on this very concept. And...last of all, there is the silent majority, those who just want to get on with surviving, who won't take too kindly to their livelyhoods or standards of living being jeopardised.
I don't think that these young people realise just what they could be getting in to, or what they are letting themselves in for. And their organisations aren't exactly politically skilled or have long experience in participating in such activities. It's OK when the internet and the telephone and the social networks are there to exchange information, to organise, to discuss, to protect, to rally. But what happens when they are shut down or filled with misleading and deceptive information? Trust only develops through struggle and exposure and takes a long time...and even then...
Support and encourage, by all means, but revolutions can be a painful business, for all concerned. And, no doubt people can learn from their mistakes. My point is that there is no nation state in the world which allows unfettered elections, either for the selection and election of candidates, or for the voting system. All are vetted, and methods of selection are made beforehand. The whole electoral process is carefully constructed, but it is not perfect by any means.
And just as the United States, or the UK government and establishment would not allow a candidate to stand who was totally opposed to them and their values...and who had a chance of winning, then the Chinese and Hong Kong establishment will have the same outlook. So, even if the people of Hong Kong "win". What will they win? No one else has won such a right before.
The USA colonials had to fight a war with the British to become a nation state...and even then, the US constitution doesn't give an unfettered right to the citizens of the US to vote for who they want, because it doesn't allow for any ole candidate to stand for President. Hence the power of illusion and allusion in the minds of supporters of western democracies. Just a few thoughts on the matter...now, for a bit of light relief in returning back to digging the foundations for my new conservatory...:-).
ATB Dougie. On 02/10/14 12:46, Todd Judge wrote:
I am familiar with the role of the English monarchy. I was just attempting to joke about the issue of who elects the queen. Oh well. At least I thought I was funny.All is well. Really. It is. Thanks for the background and ...regards, todd Sent from my iPhoneOn Oct 2, 2014, at 7:18 PM, doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:Dear Ryan & Todd,Thank you for your most intuitive and kind replies, but unfortunately you are living under an illusion and allusion perpetrated by the powers that be and the powers that are.The queen of England and now the UK, isn't the Chief Executive Officer, neither is the king...when we have one. She/he are the sovereign heads of state subject to the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament and to consultation from the Prime Minister. They aren't elected either, though they are heads of state, and can theoretically declare war and also have their own unelected Civil Service and diplomatic staff at their disposal. Every commissioned officer in the armed forces and in the police and judiciary, including the lawyers for the prosecution as well as the defence; swears an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign, based on historical feudal relationships as well as battles won and lost; as do the Members of Parliament in the House of Commons and the peers in the House of Lords...if they want to get paid.The sovereign got the job through the blood lines of previous incumbents who fought others for seizure of the land and control of the serfs, centuries ago. The Prime Minister is the top kiddo in the UK, the Chief Executive, if you like...like the President of the United States...what's in a name. He isn't elected by the majority of the people, he is elected by the majority party in the House of Commons, of whom he is leader. The majority party may not have won the majority of votes in the general election. The queen might not like the new incumbent and theoretically, according to our unwritten constitution, can refuse to appoint him, and though this has never been done, appointments have been delayed in the past, the last occasion, being during the reign of Edward Heath and Harold Wilson here in the UK. I do apologise for my digression, Shaun's meandering is catching I fear...:-).So...I will try again. Do the USA and the UK have unfettered processes of electing their Chief Executive Officers, and are therefore more democratic than China and Hong Kong?ATB Dougie. On 02/10/14 03:49, Todd Judge wrote:What about the king? He kinda elects her.On Oct 2, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Ryan Carboni <ryacko@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ryacko@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:Not in the UK. No one elects the Queen.On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 6:31 PM, doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:Dear Colleagues, In the USA and the UK and every other western democracy, anyone in the world can stand for the post of Chief Executive Officer of the country, without any restriction or qualification, and, as long as they are elected by a majority vote of the citizenry, they can take up the role. Unlike China and Hong Kong, where the candidate has to be vetted and selected beforehand, would you consider this proposition be true? ATB Dougie.