Of Ballots and Bullets: The United States, Hong Kong and Malcolm X

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.