SHANGHAI, China — As always, the month of October began with the celebration of China’s National Day holiday. Meant to commemorate the founding of the People’s Republic of China, this holiday is normally marked by an increase in travel to popular tourist sites and government organized festivities such as fireworks and concerts throughout the mainland, Hong Kong and Macau.  Although the streets of Hong Kong were packed with tens of thousands of people this past holiday, no one was there to see the annual fireworks display. In fact, it had been cancelled in the face of another, more critical gathering.

Since Sept. 26, student led pro-democracy protests have occurred throughout Hong Kong in response to a decision recently made by the Chinese government in Beijing regarding the 2017 election of Hong Kong’s Chief Executive.

To understand the dynamics and tension surrounding these protests, it is important to first understand the history of Hong Kong and its unique standing from the rest of China. Firstly, Hong Kong has been under Chinese control for a brief 17 years. The region was previously a British colony until it was handed back to China in 1997. Since then, it has been under the influence of a “one country, two systems” policy as described by Deng Xiaoping.

Essentially, it was agreed that Hong Kong would be self-governing to a degree and have certain civil liberties not afforded to mainland China while simultaneously being protected by the Chinese government. The principles by which this autonomy would be governed is laid out in a document called the Basic Law.

In chapter 4, article 45 of this document, it is promised that: “The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government … The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.” The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) announced, in 2007, that 2017 would be the year when the aim of universal suffrage would be met. Pro-democracy protesters and China’s central government dispute the interpretation of universal suffrage.

On Aug. 31, the NPCSC ruled that candidates for Hong Kong's chief executive will need approval votes from at least half of the Standing Committee, which is largely comprised of the same members that have chosen chief executives in the past. Technically, this is in agreement with the Basic Law, but for those protesting, the sentiment is that if the Beijing government chooses the candidates for the election, there is no real recognition towards the promise of universal suffrage. The realization of democracy would not be legitimate because any government appointed candidate would be, for the protestors, a government-controlled puppet.

Assistant Professor of Global China Studies at NYU Shanghai Andrea Jones-Rooy acknowledges that while the three candidates could be politically aligned rubber-stamp politicians, she also appreciates the argument that Beijing could just as easily select these candidates very carefully:

“[The Chinese government does] not take the decision of who would be a candidate leader lightly. Therefore, it is not likely that they would put up this type of ‘puppet candidate’ who is not properly trained or competent for the job. One can think about it in terms of how the president of the United States has the privilege to appoint cabinet members opposed to them being elected. These people are highly esteemed, proper, and successful people who have ample experience in politics. We look up to them, they all have high degrees, they all have experience … The best interpretation of what Beijing is proposing is something that looks kind of like that,” said Jones-Rooy.

Jones-Rooy’s sentiment seems to be shared by some people even within Hong Kong. One Hong Kong teenager wrote on her Facebook that she is hesitant to “show solidarity to our fellow protesters” and that “the movement has caused a lot of unnecessary friction between authorities (such as policemen) and citizens … I understand people are moved by unfair conditions (such as wealth disparity), but I’m not sure this is the way to solve any problems.” Her uncertainty is reflected in polls taken in late Sept. that indicate there are more residents against the demonstrations than who support it.

Nevertheless, the movement is certainly not lacking in supporters. Rallies have taken place globally and, in the span of a few days, several Umbrella Movement — a name coined on social media evoking the number of protesters who used umbrellas to protect themselves against pepper spray and tear gas, a name rejected by protagonist organisations on both sides for its violent overtones — protests were conducted in major cities and colleges in both Europe and the United States. The White House sent out an official email to everyone who signed a petition in support of the Hong Kong protesters indicating their stance:

“The United States supports universal suffrage in Hong Kong in accordance with the Basic Law and we support the aspirations of the Hong Kong people. We believe that an open society, with the highest possible degree of autonomy and governed by the rule of law, is essential for Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity — indeed this is what has made Hong Kong such a successful and truly global city. We have consistently made our position known to Beijing, and we will continue to do so.”

Two NYUSH freshmen agreed that the protesters in Hong Kong were right to be upset as their wishes are not being sufficiently acknowledged, but also believed that blocking streets and aggressive protesting was an overreaction, suggesting that the citizens of Hong Kong could have conducted their protests in a more civil way. However, they expressed more frustration over the actions of those outside of China and Hong Kong.

When asked what her biggest concern was, one student said she worried that Western powers and media would see this as an opportunity to arouse conflicts between Hong Kong and China and use their influence to make the situation more complex than the original appeal from the people of Hong Kong. She also expressed concern for the impact these protests may have on the economy in Hong Kong, with many businesses already looking to relocate if things become more unstable.