It's easy - but wrong - to see the riots and repression taking place each weekend in Hong Kong as irrelevant. In reality there is a direct link between these protests and many other, similar, events occurring across the world.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
It's all in the way we communicate.
The streets of London, for example, are bear witness to daily (if much smaller) confrontations between implacably opposed groups. In the US being "pro- or anti-Trump" has now become a badge of identity, rather than a simple, transient political choice. Brazil is gripped in a political crisis while the Amazon burns; extra-judicial killings are the political weapon of choice in Nigeria. Strife spreads unchecked, engulfing every continent.
It's easy to dismiss events in Hong Kong as if it's just another instance of democracy wilting under the flailing truncheons of ruthless police or idealism being crushed by hierarchy. But look further and move beyond lazy assumptions. Despite the differences, what's happening here bares startling resemblance to other events across the world.
In the 1990's we heard predictions of the 'end of history' and the triumph of thriving, pluralist democracies. Today's reality is very different. In every continent, no matter the system of government, bitter struggles are erupting between those who feel excluded and others enjoying the benefits of growth and economic advancement.
The streets of capitals across the world bear witness to an almost collective global angst. This paralyses individual nations and prevents coordinated global action on critical issues we all face, such as climate change.
Why do we live in an age of anger? What can possibly explain this shocking resonance between events in such different countries, governed by such different political systems as Putin's Russia, Trumps America, Johnson's Britain and Xi's China?
The primary answer is, of course, economic. The globe may have recovered from the 2007 global financial crisis but the hope and opportunity accompanying this has not been shared equally. Here in Australia we've had numerous reports assuring us that everything is "back on track", which may be true for most, but not those who recently voted for Clive Palmer, Pauline Hanson or other minor parties (including the Greens).
The last election saw more voters alienated from the two major parties than ever before. Over eight percent of voters couldn't even be bothered to turn out and fill in a ballot paper, despite having weeks in which to do so. Of those who did, fewer than three in every four voted for major parties and a further 835,223 (more than five percent) voted informal. That's almost twice the 436,233 two-party preferred vote difference between the winners and losers.
Examine the electorates where these disaffected voters live and the correlations with economic exclusion and disadvantage are self-evident.
The second factor, exacerbating this division, is the effect of the new media environment.
Every medium - Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat or Weibo - determines both the amount of content that can be provided and the way it's presented. Just try composing a nuanced, informed and balanced message in 120 or 240 characters and you quickly realise it can't be done. Then add to this the deliberate hijacking of the platforms themselves to fan anger and inflame audiences.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute on Tuesday released a report about the obvious and deliberate propagation of pro-China messages during the Hong Kong protests from mainland China, but that's not the real problem. Messages will only resonate where there is a willing receiver. Defence Chief Angus Campbell has warned about something far more insidious and dangerous - a new form of political warfare including, critically, information operations.
Everyone who presses 'send' is seeking to push their own particular interpretation of reality, no matter how little expertise they actually have.
It's not just foreign states that are engaged in this battle for control of the mind.
Everyone who presses 'send' is seeking to push their own particular interpretation of reality, no matter how little expertise they actually have about the events they've rushed to judgement on. Negatives and finger pointing abounds: subtlety is extinguished.
The correct response is not to blame journalism, but rather to reinforce it.
If the government's worried enough about foreign influence in universities to launch a task-force to examine this, maybe it needs to think about engaging positively with communities of foreign students. The best way to fight any battle of ideas is by using the ultimate weapon: truth.
This doesn't mean pushing simplistic narratives, such as 'democracy is good'. That sort of 'good news' message hasn't worked to bring the economically disenchanted on side and it won't work by appealing to nationalist rhetoric either.
People identify with imagined communities, whether as citizens of Hong Kong; international students in Australia; or Clive Palmer voters. Telling them they're stupid won't be enough to persuade them to change. People need, instead, to be spoken to as individuals and yet feel part of something larger, a real community of shared interests.
Labor's messaging at the last election failed to convey this idea - that we are all part of a unified endeavour. Tweets and snaps play to division. They readily ignite anger and flame the underlying feelings of economic exclusion. If societies are going to continue to exist we will need to discover a way of ameliorating the emotions these arouse.
Civilisation has confronted similar growing traumas before. Unfortunately there are no guarantees that the introduction of this new communications technology won't result in war and conflict.
- Nicholas Stuart is a Canberra writer
Nicholas Stuart
Nicholas Stuart is a Canberra writer.
Nicholas Stuart is a Canberra writer.
