Neither Repression Nor Concession? A Regime’s Attrition against Mass Protests

Abstract

Protest activists employ various strategies to challenge regimes, and regimes deploy multifaceted tactics to respond to such challenges. Existing studies on regime protest responses focus on repression and concession, but little attention is devoted to toleration, which is often regarded as government inaction. Drawing on primary sources and interviews, this article analyses regime responses to Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement to expand the conceptualisation of toleration. First, it demonstrates that regimes adapt multiple strategies to protesters’ reactions rather than adhering to a single response. Second, it shows that toleration, other than ignoring protests, entails proactive tactics that we summarise as attrition. While ‘tolerating’ street occupation, the regime sought to eliminate political opportunities by maintaining elite cohesion, increase participation costs by mobilising countermovements and bolster legitimacy by leveraging the court as a revered institution. This new conceptual distinction thus captures regime innovation in counteracting protests and broadens the typology of regime responses.

In the Name of the Law: Legal Frames and the Ending of the Occupy Movement in Hong Kong

“…The existing literature has identified that the law can be used to control social movements, but there has been little discussion of the factors that influence protesters to obey the law when facing legal instruments. Whether the country or region has an established rule of law is certainly important to understanding whether protesters will comply with the law (Barkan 1984;Yuen and Cheng 2017). This article adds to the literature by also arguing that it is important to understand how protesters interpret the movement through their collective action frame.…”

“…The repression by the government and other social actors vis-à-vis the Occupy Movement has been another subject of study. Yuen and Cheng (2017) note that the government responded to the movement through a strategy of attrition: while seemingly tolerating the street occupation, the government made attempts to maintain elite cohesion, mobilize counter-movements, and leverage legal instruments. Some attackers from the counter-movements were low-level triads (organized crime syndicates operating in Hong Kong) (Varese and Wong 2017).…”

“…The application and issuance of injunctions are worth noting. Yuen and Cheng (2017) reveal that intermediaries who had ties to the Hong Kong government approached some private companies and asked for their help to put an end to the movement. Some companies, particularly large firms, refused, but others agreed to cooperate with the government.…”

“…Citizen participation reached its peak in the initial days of the movement. After the initial repression of the movement backfired, the government seemingly tolerated movement activity while simultaneously employing multiple tactics to exhaust the protesters (Yuen and Cheng 2017).…”

Explaining Localism in Post-handover Hong Kong: An Eventful Approach

“…A coalition known as the Alliance for Peace and Democracy was also established in July 2014, comprising more than 1,500 pro-Beijing political parties, industry associations, and mass organisation, to rally against Occupy Central. Together, these pro-regime forces played a crucial role in creating chaos in the protest camp and thereby constraining leaders' strategic moves, which enervated the 79-day Umbrella Movement (Yuen and Cheng 2017).…”