How Cynicism Weakens the Rule of the Law
As protestors on the streets of Hong Kong continued their street battles with the police to demand the withdrawal of a controversial extradition bill, there have been some extraordinarily cynical comments about the ongoing events and their limited impact on the forcefulness of the Chinese government. The gist of the cynics' argument is that the protests are only likely to halt the inevitable passing of the bill by a few years, as the Chinese government and its puppet-like representatives in Hong Kong back off temporarily, only to move forward again more discreetly and in another form, under new leadership.
Behind the logic of the cynics is a belief that grassroots movements have little impact on the behaviors of governments with little concern for either its image abroad or concerns from ordinary citizens. They believe that the government ultimately work for the interest of the elites hoarding political power to retain power and that elites will not change their trajectory in any circumstance short of an outright popular assault on themselves. Hence, the logic would go, any popular movement that falls short of a direct attack on the political elites to displace them would be ineffective. Protestors are better off thinking about how to leave.
Never mind the fact that leaving is difficult in a world that is increasingly anti-immigration, for the specific case of Hong Kong, the cynics are rather justified in their logic. Despite several major protests in the past that led to chief executives stepping down as they faced public pressure, Beijing has slowly reshaped the political and legal institutions of the territory to its liking through piecemeal reforms in spite of popular opposition. Most notable is the change in the territory's governing Basic Law that is now enshrining the need for "patriotic education" and punishment against sedition and treason, all of which defined largely in Beijing's terms.
By continuing to argue that Beijing is going to force Hong Kong to be more like it, no matter how much the grassroots organize itself against the changes, the cynics inherently creates a condition for self-fulfilling prophecies. If the general public ascribes to the cynics' logic and sees Beijing's desire to reshape the city as inevitable, they would simply go home and let Beijing walk all over the city's institutions without a peep of opposing voices. The result will only be a faster convergence of Hong Kong with mainland norms, seeing off the city's dissidents to the country's myriad reeducation camps for the "others."
But perhaps even more harmful effect of the cynics' logic of inevitability going mainstream is the possibility of the rule of law becoming weaker. This is not just an issue particular to the case of Hong Kong or China in general. If people believe that the law, like attempts to change it, is a tool used by the elites to hoard power and stop non-elites from usurping, then there is little reason for non-elites of the world to strictly adhere to it. After all, in a world where the non-elites can never become elites, there is little reason the non-elites follow laws that are supposedly designed to protect only the elites' interests.
Greater prevalence of the "elites-only" view of the law would correspond to a greater prevalence of attempts among individuals to flaunt the law whenever the law does not work in favor of individual interests. Given the limited number of law enforcement officers in any jurisdiction, laws in place can only function properly when the vast majority of people adhere to them without coercion and will report any instances of violation that they find. But if the majority do not believe that the law works for them, then such self-enforcement mechanisms break down, leaving the law just text on paper with little real-world effectiveness.
The result is fundamental risks for businesses and individuals as they ascertain just how effective regulations in place are at protecting their interests. Uncertainty with how much laws are adhered and enforced detrimentally affect economic growth and individual well-being as everyone needs to spend more of their personal resources securing themselves against unreported and unpunished unlawful acts. If the law is no longer a public good that everyone automatically follows, the state must invest more in enforcement through coercion, costing more in money and popular goodwill, not to mention bolstering the cynics' logic of elitism.
The danger of cynical flaunting of the law can only be defeated by limiting the extent of cynicism. A bit of cynicism is needed and healthy to assess what is realistic and what is not in any contentious political situation, but having too much of it negates the positive impact of idealism, based on the hope that there is enough social mobility for non-elites to become elites and that the elites are willing to compromise even without the outright threatening of being dethroned through violence. That hope underpins protest movements across the world today, whether it be in Hong Kong or Sudan or any other site of significant political conflict. Cynics may dismiss hope as toothless naivete, but when there is no longer any hope for improvements, what else do powerless people at the bottom of society live for?
Behind the logic of the cynics is a belief that grassroots movements have little impact on the behaviors of governments with little concern for either its image abroad or concerns from ordinary citizens. They believe that the government ultimately work for the interest of the elites hoarding political power to retain power and that elites will not change their trajectory in any circumstance short of an outright popular assault on themselves. Hence, the logic would go, any popular movement that falls short of a direct attack on the political elites to displace them would be ineffective. Protestors are better off thinking about how to leave.
Never mind the fact that leaving is difficult in a world that is increasingly anti-immigration, for the specific case of Hong Kong, the cynics are rather justified in their logic. Despite several major protests in the past that led to chief executives stepping down as they faced public pressure, Beijing has slowly reshaped the political and legal institutions of the territory to its liking through piecemeal reforms in spite of popular opposition. Most notable is the change in the territory's governing Basic Law that is now enshrining the need for "patriotic education" and punishment against sedition and treason, all of which defined largely in Beijing's terms.
By continuing to argue that Beijing is going to force Hong Kong to be more like it, no matter how much the grassroots organize itself against the changes, the cynics inherently creates a condition for self-fulfilling prophecies. If the general public ascribes to the cynics' logic and sees Beijing's desire to reshape the city as inevitable, they would simply go home and let Beijing walk all over the city's institutions without a peep of opposing voices. The result will only be a faster convergence of Hong Kong with mainland norms, seeing off the city's dissidents to the country's myriad reeducation camps for the "others."
But perhaps even more harmful effect of the cynics' logic of inevitability going mainstream is the possibility of the rule of law becoming weaker. This is not just an issue particular to the case of Hong Kong or China in general. If people believe that the law, like attempts to change it, is a tool used by the elites to hoard power and stop non-elites from usurping, then there is little reason for non-elites of the world to strictly adhere to it. After all, in a world where the non-elites can never become elites, there is little reason the non-elites follow laws that are supposedly designed to protect only the elites' interests.
Greater prevalence of the "elites-only" view of the law would correspond to a greater prevalence of attempts among individuals to flaunt the law whenever the law does not work in favor of individual interests. Given the limited number of law enforcement officers in any jurisdiction, laws in place can only function properly when the vast majority of people adhere to them without coercion and will report any instances of violation that they find. But if the majority do not believe that the law works for them, then such self-enforcement mechanisms break down, leaving the law just text on paper with little real-world effectiveness.
The result is fundamental risks for businesses and individuals as they ascertain just how effective regulations in place are at protecting their interests. Uncertainty with how much laws are adhered and enforced detrimentally affect economic growth and individual well-being as everyone needs to spend more of their personal resources securing themselves against unreported and unpunished unlawful acts. If the law is no longer a public good that everyone automatically follows, the state must invest more in enforcement through coercion, costing more in money and popular goodwill, not to mention bolstering the cynics' logic of elitism.
The danger of cynical flaunting of the law can only be defeated by limiting the extent of cynicism. A bit of cynicism is needed and healthy to assess what is realistic and what is not in any contentious political situation, but having too much of it negates the positive impact of idealism, based on the hope that there is enough social mobility for non-elites to become elites and that the elites are willing to compromise even without the outright threatening of being dethroned through violence. That hope underpins protest movements across the world today, whether it be in Hong Kong or Sudan or any other site of significant political conflict. Cynics may dismiss hope as toothless naivete, but when there is no longer any hope for improvements, what else do powerless people at the bottom of society live for?
Comments
Post a Comment