The world's only two super powers are currently being rocked by
protests: Hong
Kong over China's continued authoritarian grabs and violation of the
One Country, Two Systems policy; and the United
States over the police killing of George Floyd, another one in the
long, long history of police brutality leading to the deaths of black people.
The reasons for this are at
once complex and simple. Complex, because there are always multiple
intersecting reasons for why something erupts at this moment, rather than
another. Simple, because ultimately there is only so much violence that can be
committed against groups, so much dignity that can be trashed, before it
invites a reaction.
So, on the simple side of the
equation, an answer is offered by Malcolm X and speech he gave at Cleveland in
1964: 'The
Ballot or the Bullet'.
In the speech, Malcolm X
largely relates the ways in which the American government has sought to
frustrate the attainment of rights by black Americans; though as Malcolm notes
this is a strange way of looking at things as blacks should have those rights
by definition ("we're justified in seeking civil rights, if it means
equality of opportunity, because all we're doing there is trying to collect on
our investment [...] This is our contribution--our blood. Not only did we give
our free labour, we gave our blood"). This is the contrast he draws
between civil rights, the thing that is in the purview of the United States
government to give or deny, and human rights, those rights that everyone has by
virtue of being human, and why appealing to the latter is important.
But the repeated phrase
throughout the speech is the one of the title: the choices are "the ballot
or the bullet".
Now, what is meant here is not
an endorsement of violence, he's not urging anyone to go out and start shooting
things, but rather that violence is a legitimate pathway for self-defence and
in the face of the denial of rights: "I don't mean go out and get violent;
but at the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some
nonviolence. I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me."
This, then, is the point.
Change should come via the ballot, via peaceful and democratic means if
possible. However, if people are denied meaningful avenues for their voices to
be heard, meaningful avenues for their voices to be recognised, and meaningful
avenues for meaningful change to be effected, then ultimately violence is the
recourse.
Both Hong Kong and the United
States are evidence of this. Both are cases of injustice being suffered, both
are cases of people not being heard and not having routes to effect meaningful
change. Black Lives Matter started during the Obama presidency for a reason
after all. As Malcolm X is making clear, people can only be denied so long before
it invites a reaction.
As to where it goes from here,
who knows? Xi Jinping is undoubtedly hoping that if the state cracks enough
heads it'll take the sting out of the movement. Arrest the leaders, and get the
others to flee abroad and the thing will quiet down. And it may well work. But
it's a tricky thing. Paradoxically, perhaps, China is something of a weak
state: like many authoritarian states it can lose power quickly if a sufficient
volume of people cease fearing it. The officials are terrified of another Tiananmen
Square incident happening, something that only just managed to be quelled at
the time. Since then the trade-off has been economic growth and consumer goods
in exchange for the Party maintaining its power. But if the economy proves to be
banjaxed by Covid-19, then it's anyone's guess as to whether that will last.
As for the United States,
assuming it gets through the next few weeks and months, the undoubted hope of
the establishment will be that Joe Biden somehow manages to clown shoe his way
into the White House. At which point he'll likely introduce increased
sensitivity training for the police (that
won't work), whilst maintaining or extending legislation and powers that
makes it easy for the police to aggressively target, arrest and murder black
Americans, ala Bill Clinton. The crisis will then be declared over, and the
press can get back to loudly ticking off Black Lives Matter. And, who knows, it
may even work.
Violence is cruel and horrible.
But, to borrow a phrasing from David Mamet, whilst violence can never be just,
it can be justified. Both instances here are cases of this. And ultimately, as
Malcolm X said, "it'll be ballots, or it'll be bullets".
I hope that possibilities, real possibilities, emerge for the
former in the wake of this.
