There are many reasons as to why such narratives have blossomed, but from a purely politico-historiographical point of view, there are substantial dangers with a reductively intentionalist interpretation of events – that is, the view that any and all major events in politics can be attributed to human intentions and agency in exercising actions with clearly foreseeable consequences. Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific. Some protesters even view the summer as an intentional move by particular parties to further undercut Hong Kong’s structural and political autonomy, so as to undermine the city’s international competitiveness and economic tenacity. On the other hand, elaborate conspiracy theories have surfaced, accusing both Chief Executive Carrie Lam and her cabinet of harboring ulterior motives in propelling Hong Kong into a bottomless abyss through inept governance.
Those who identify themselves with the establishment view the destructive, trenchant acts by violent radicals as the products of youth who intentionally caused chaos or see the protests as influenced by Western-backed individuals who sought to undermine the Chinese order within Hong Kong. The Intellectual Dangers of Monolithic IntentionalismĮxisting explanations for the past summer’s events in Hong Kong have often been fixated upon identifying the intentions of particular actors as the ostensible root causes for the crisis. Deng’s vision was indubitably built upon foresight and a recognition that solidarity and unity could be found in the embracing of dualism in cultures, values, and bureaucratic structures. But also in its ambitiousness, in temporally extending for at least “50 years unchanged” and normatively serving as a model which, if successful in Hong Kong and Macau, could become a functional arrangement for China with regards to other comparable territories – with significant cultural and institutional differences from the mainland populace. First in its extensiveness, given its mandate of prescribing the mode of governance shaping the relationship between 1.4 billion mainland Chinese citizens and 7.4 million residing in Hong Kong.
The 1C2S is unparalleled as a normative ideal. Under 1C2S, Hong Kong and Macau (alongside, hypothetically, other selected regions) would retain their economic, political, and administrative systems that are distinct and separate from the rest of the mainland, but would be governed under the overarching sovereign entity of China. What started out as a protest against an extradition bill has evolved into a fundamental challenge – and set of questions – posed over the tenability of “one country, two systems” (1C2S), a constitutional principle formulated by Deng Xiaoping in articulating strategically an ideal modus vivendi as the People’s Republic of China regains sovereignty over Hong Kong and Macau, two former colonies. Hong Kong has reached a state of political pandemonium – with deeply rooted concerns surfacing through one of the most turbulent periods it has endured in its political history.
0 kommentar(er)
