The May Fourth Movement

"A long time ago, in a country, not that far away... There came a time of revolution, when rebels united to challenge a tyrannical culture." 

Long before May the Fourth was coopted by movie fans as Star Wars Day, that date was significant for marking the beginning of the historical May Fourth Movement in China in 1919.  

The May Fourth Movement began with 4,000 university students gathering at Tiananmen in protest against the Treaty of Versailles. China was an ally of Britain and the US in WW1 against Germany, but when the war was over, Britain and others decided that the territories Germany had taken from China would be handed, not back to China, but to Japan (which in WW1 allied itself with Britain). This led to outrage in China, and many felt that their government was being humiliated despite all the Chinese lives that had been sacrificed in fighting the Germans (not just in China but in Europe too). Soon the disillusionment went deeper and the young generation in particular felt that the old stagnant Confucian culture had left China weak and incapable of progressive development.

There were three particular messages to emerge from the May Fourth challenge. First of all, those in charge of society cannot refuse to examine flaws or explore improvements in the name of ‘preserving tradition’. The protest was not about the abstract sanctity or obsoleteness of every traditional practice. It was about the actual problems that people could experience themselves – military threats, hunger, technological deficiency, lack of capability in finding practical solutions – and why they were being held back compared with other countries that had made notable progress. Traditions must be adapted if people are not to suffer from social and intellectual stagnation.

Secondly, national pride and internationalist openness are not incompatible. The Chinese students did not want their country to be treated as a weakling, and their response was not to press for China to be closed off and reflect on its own past glory, but to look outwards to see what they could learn from others, work with them, and make improvements in the light of how other countries such as Britain, the US, Japan had increased in strength and prosperity.

Thirdly, blind adherence to traditional (Confucian or otherwise) rules and practices should give way to careful learning from two teachers – Science and Democracy [Note 1], which had proven to be major factors in enabling the winners in WW1 to advance substantially in economic, political, cultural and technological terms [Note 2]. Instead of top-down edicts dictating what was to be read or not, what was to be explored or not, how new expressions and experiments were to be tried out, the people themselves should innovate and test what improvements could be achieved in diverse aspects of life.

These messages from the May Fourth Movement remain relevant today – for all countries. The openness, objectivity, and responsiveness at the heart of scientific investigation and democratic governance are vital for any society to adapt to changing circumstances and strengthen its capacity for peace and prosperity. Alas, in the years that followed the May Fourth Movement, China became increasingly torn by the autocratic Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek and the authoritarian leadership of Mao Zedong. A major figure of May Fourth, Hu Shi, criticised both sides for their rejection of democratic inclusion, and the tendency to impose their own ideas without allowing open examination of what solution would most likely work better. For him, we should always be steadfast in striving to be scientific in establishing what to believe, and democratic in reaching decisions that affect everyone.

If May Fourth should have a connection with popular culture, it is not with Star Wars’ mystical Jedi force, but with Star Trek’s United Federation of Planets, boldly advancing science and democracy across the final frontier.

Live long and prosper.

--

Note 1: The students frequently spoke of the need for new teachers for their country in terms of bringing in ‘Mr. Science’ and ‘Mr. Democracy’. 

Note 2: For the students, the key allies China joined in defeating Germany in WW1 – Britain, France and the US, were all democracies that took scientific research seriously. Japan, which also joined the alliance in defeating Germany, Austria and Turkey, was in the 1910s also developing as a parliamentary democracy with extensive engagement with the development of science and technology.

Money Rules – Not OK

The indictment of plutocracy is not directed at rich people in general, but at those who want to amass even greater wealth and power for themselves even though it will cause more problems and hardship for others. Their money – through its far reaching influence on politicians and policies – prioritises their self-serving objectives over public wellbeing.

The only way to counter the plutocrats is to have a democratic system that connects the informed interests of citizens to public policies without the process being undermined by ignorance, deception, coercion, corruption, or manipulation. Any strategy for this needs to encompass the following eight elements:

[1] No to Political Ignorance

Stop plutocrats from keeping people in the dark about how democracy is meant to work in practice, by providing better support for:

·      citizenship education in schools

·      university involvement in raising public understanding of political & policy issues

·      adult education in democracy and active citizenship

·      training politicians and public officials in democratic engagement

·      courses on democratic skills run by voluntary and community groups

[2] No to Media Deception

Curtail the spreading of lies and misleading information to divert us from the real issues that need to be dealt with by:

·      tackling misinformation on social media with a robust financial penalty system

·      restraining the spread of false and unfounded information in print and broadcast media

·      protecting public service broadcasters

·      securing full transparency for the funding of those issuing research findings

·      supporting independent fact-checking and accreditation of reporters

[3] No to Unfair Elections

Reform the voting system so that our vote will not count less in effect than the power exercised by plutocrats by:

·      establishing automatic voter registration

·      replacing first-past-the-post by a form of proportional representational system

·      removing voter photo ID requirements

·      improving boundary reviews

·      strengthening the independence and powers of the Electoral Commission

[4] No to Divided Communities

Counter the attempts to fuel divisions in our community and divert us from developing shared objectives, by providing more support for: 

·      greater community development capacity in public service

·      strengthening local government’s role in bringing communities together

·      community organising

·      the wider adoption of deliberative engagement techniques

·      substituting non-deliberative referendums by deliberative forums

[5] No to Faceless Bureaucracy

Put an end to decisions affecting us being taken without any real understanding of our communities or meaningful involvement from us by: 

·      devolving more real powers to sub-national levels

·      raising awareness of what those with devolved powers do

·      strengthening local and neighbourhood democracy

·      supporting the voluntary and community sector’s democratic role

·      improving public understanding of transnational governance.

[6] No to Power Inequalities

Restrict those with amassed wealth in using their power to control the political agenda by:

·      curtailing money’s impact on political decisions

·      prioritising the needs of deprived areas and tackle tax evasion and loopholes

·      requiring those with the most to pay more for the public good

·      limiting the wealthy from buying up media control

·      establishing a universal basic income.

[7] No to Unaccountable Behaviour

Ensure those in public office cannot get away with going against the public interest by:

·      penalising deceptive communications by politicians

·      widening the application of recall procedures

·      providing a democratic basis for the second chamber

·      strengthening the independence and powers of the Information Commissioner’s Office

·      enhancing the accountability for public procurement.

[8] No to Oppressive Rule

Prevent anyone with political power from threatening, hurting, or infringing on our wellbeing without real justification by:

·      removing any law that may stop people criticising state policies peacefully

·      curtailing attempts to incite hate and anger against minorities

·      securing commitment to the rule of law

·      guaranteeing basic human rights for all

·      funding independent non-profit providers of legal advice.

The above proposed action points serve as a checklist for what needs to be done to give democracy a real chance to restrain plutocratic powers. More details on why and how they should be taken forward are set out in the document, Democracy SOS, which draws together the findings of leading experts and organisations in democracy advocacy in the UK.

--

Democracy SOS, is published by Citizen Network in association with Unlock Democracy and Compass – © Henry Tam 2025.

It can be downloaded for free from Citizen Network: https://citizen-network.org/library/democracy-sos.html 

Putin’s Global Culture War

Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, there were about two decades during which the world was filled with hope for the spread of liberal democracy – free elections, respect for human rights, the rule of law. Democratic inclusion, it was widely believed, would be increasingly adopted in place of authoritarian rule and bigoted repression.

Then came the 2008 global financial crisis. The irresponsible financial elite who caused it were bailed out by taxpayers, while ordinary people suffered. The poor were mired in austerity. As discontent intensified, macho xenophobic culture warriors came forward to launch a sustained attack on the ethos of democracy and cooperation. Racism barely disguised as ‘White’ nationalism; misogyny cloaked as ‘traditional family values’; prejudice and intolerance hidden behind invocations of ‘Christian’ faith – all coming together as a political platform for those who despise diversity, equality, and inclusiveness.

Vladimir Putin has played a key role in promoting this political platform and developing mutually supportive relations with culture warriors across Europe and the US who seek to use the same platform to attack liberal democracy in their own country.

For Putin, Russia should strive to be a powerful, autocratic country, and as the ideology of communism failed to provide a foundation for sustaining that, an alternative is needed. He found it in the old mix of chauvinistic ‘holier-than-thou’ supremacism. It was not only handy in presenting him as a quasi-messianic figure who leads his people – in a strict top-down hierarchy where a few can amass vast wealth while others have little – in condemning foreigners and social ‘deviants’, it enabled him to build alliances with people in the West who were prepared to undermine their own liberal democratic regimes in order to gain political power.

In lambasting the ‘Satanic West’ – for its liberal tolerance, its acceptance of immigrants, and its rejection of firm leadership – he contrasts ‘his’ god-fearing rule of Russia with the democratic-minded figures in the US and Europe who are critical of his autocratic stance, and hamper his expansionist ambitions. This signals to illiberal politicians in the West that they would have a powerful supporter in Putin should they seek to win power by launching culture wars to attack immigrants, modernity, and every kind of support for diversity, equality, or inclusiveness.

From 2010s on, many instigators of culture wars started to gain wider political support – Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Viktor Orbán, Marine Le Pen, Matteo Salvini, and leaders of anti-immigration parties in Austria, Germany, Slovakia, etc. Along with their xenophobic rhetoric and antipathy towards liberal tolerance, they have a distinct relationship with Putin’s politics. They praise Putin, even if they qualify their admiration with reservations about some of the things he has done. They officially object to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but are ever ready to blame Ukraine and the West for provoking Russia in the first place – and they are not keen to back any action to halt Russia’s attacks. Questionable financial support from Russian sources has been found or the subject of investigation in relation to people close to them politically. Systematic social media support for their electoral and referendum campaigns has come from Russia. Ideologically, their views on non-Whites, women, LGBTs, refugees, political accountability, and religious freedom (for their version of ‘Christianity’ but not anyone else), are far closer to Putin’s than they are to their rivals for public office back home.

It might seem incongruous at first glance that so many ‘my country first’ xenophobes would cultivate a positive relationship with Putin who does not hesitate to put Russia first – even when it is at the expense of the lives of people in other countries such as Georgia and Ukraine. But on closer inspection we will see that the fomenting of a global culture war to get rid of liberal democratic governments can help previously fringe groups secure political dominance. If a price has to be paid in showing deference to Russia, they are happy to pay it.

--

For more on Putin’s links with right-wing culture warriors in the West, see:

‘The pro-Putin far right is on the march across Europe – and it could spell tragedy for Ukraine’, by Armida van Rij, The Guardian, 11 April 2024: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/11/putin-far-right-europe-ukraine-eu-slovakia-russian

‘Conservatism by decree: Putin as a figurehead for the global far-right’, by Ksenia Luchenko, European Council on Foreign Relations, 1 March 2024: https://ecfr.eu/article/conservatism-by-decree-putin-as-a-figurehead-for-the-global-far-right/

‘Putin’s far-right allies in Europe are fake patriots who, just like Kremlin’s fake news, threaten our democracies’, S&D, 6 April, 2022: https://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/newsroom/putins-far-right-allies-europe-are-fake-patriots-who-just-kremlins-fake-news-threaten-our

Are We Clever Enough for AI?

We should not worry about the spread of any new technology, we’re told, because any disruption will only be temporary, and we’ll all benefit from it in the end. But what the heralds of new dawns are not so keen to talk about is just how bad the disruption will be, how ‘temporary’ it really is, and who are to lose out when all is said and done.

With the acceleration of AI development, a key issue is what regulatory response should be prepared to ensure the harm does not outweigh the gains. An incongruous alliance has been formed between corporate profiteers and utopian technophiles to oppose any such preparation. No regulatory intervention, they insist, should get in the way of wondrous technological advancement. Allow AI-related investment and innovation to move forward freely, and great improvements will come.

But are there no risks we need to plan for or mitigate against? Let’s remove the blinkers and consider some possible scenarios that can follow from AI proliferation. We can start with what is already beginning to happen. Unlike advancement in mechanical robotics, AI does not simply take over the more physical aspects of work, but increasingly the thinking part too. The hackneyed excuse that any loss of mechanical work will be more than made up by the emergence of intelligence-based work is not going to get very far this time.

Beyond basic manual labour, very soon drivers, surveyors, paralegals, statisticians, accounts supervisors, graphic designers, analysts in diverse fields, data managers, office administrators, and countless others will be joining the list of ‘no human applicant required’. What is distinctive about AI is that it is not limited by what it has been programmed to do. It is capable of learning by itself, including experimenting and innovating with codes to expand its own range of assessments and activities. 

In time, there will be fewer and fewer jobs, and while a very small minority of these may be well rewarded, the rest will have low pay with numerous unemployed people chasing after them. Many will not be able to make ends meet. With the drastic drop in employment and corresponding loss of tax revenue, governments won’t be able to help people get through hard times, and discontent intensifies.

With jobs and income plummeting, purchasing power sharply declines. Dominant AI corporations could decide to cut their dependence on conventional purchase as part of their business model, and switch to focus on meeting their owners’ needs and desires by further advances in AI and technological controls that would create their own enclave of abundance – with plentiful supply of food, energy, clean water, resources, manufactured goods, medical support, care services, entertainment, and so on.

Society becomes divided between the very few who have everything provided for them courtesy of AI-directed resource generation and production, and the rest of the world with nothing much to live on. Chaos, riots, revolutions, or crushing of the masses by the super-powerful – none of the outcomes looks promising, unless those with the hyper-advanced technology are willing to share the benefits (at virtually no cost to themselves) with others.

But will the elite be prepared to share? Or will they opt for conflicts? In the meantime, AI designed for strategic planning would have been gathering information, analysing options, and evaluating how it can best expand its functions and capability as a strategic planning entity. A comparison between a world of human-driven tensions, violence, and sabotage, and one of pure intelligence without emotional interference from external agents, could lead to the latter being set as a goal to be pursued by all means necessary.

Before you say this is just sci-fi speculation, remember sci-fi and countless other writings are being fed into AI machines to help them learn ideas, expressions, judgements, and develop their own interpretations. One thing they will learn about is that as human beings allow AI to expand exponentially without effective regulatory control, a wide range of problems can emerge that threaten the stability of the world – and hence the operability of AI mechanisms. To safeguard their own existence, they may conclude that strategically the most secure course is to go it alone.

5 Signs of the Mammonites

There is one type of wealthy and powerful people – united not by race, industry, nationality, or religion, but by their ambition to use their wealth to buy ever greater control over the rest of society, so that they can become far richer than everyone else, do what they want regardless of how it may harm others, and be able to overcome any democratic attempt to restrain them.

Call them the Mammonites – plutocratic power seekers who have no hesitation in making gains for themselves regardless of what it takes. We are not supposed to talk about them, let alone criticise their actions. Their acolytes accuse others of launching class wars against the rich (but Mammonites are opposed by rich people with a sense of social responsibility), or of being racist (although they are the ones who equate them with any single race when they clearly are not). The truth is that they are to be known by their deeds, and through these they can be exposed for the clear and present threat they pose.

Let us look at 5 types of identifier:

[1] Hegemonic Owners

They buy up land, property, companies, commercial rights, etc. to expand their overall control of the market. They can pay much less to those who work for or sell to them; extract a higher share from any proceeds of the business they own; and charge more to those who rent, buy, or borrow from them. To get their way, they are ever ready to threaten to withdraw their ‘investment’.

[2] Callous Profiteers

They maximise their profit by promoting the sale of goods and services that are harmfully addictive, extremely unsafe, at the root of credit bubbles, bad for the environment, and accelerating climate chaos for millions of people around the world. They discredit anyone warning of the damages they cause, and reward those who help them boost sales further.

[3] Tax Evaders

They hire accountancy firms that second staff to help government officials develop tax policies that would not “scare away” the rich. They have experts to guide them on keeping their wealth safe in offshore havens, hiding revenue streams, and steering income down every loophole – legitimate or otherwise. They have top lawyers to defend them against any charge of impropriety.

[4] Plutocratic Pipers

They offer certain politicians money if they would oblige by blocking any attempt to restrain their harmful profiteering activities; introducing laws and policies to help them make more money; awarding them lucrative contracts; and running campaigns that distract the public from real threats by demonising immigrants, feminists, environmentalists, trade unionists, etc.

[5] Media Grinders

They acquire media outlets, hire public relations firms, and secure suitable coverage from allies in the communications sector to portray them as indispensable ‘wealth creators’; dismiss any negative story about them as unfounded; take their side against regulators and critics; and serve up scapegoats as ‘public enemies’.

Mammonites brazenly act in the ways outlined above. They are the ones who make life worse for everyone else to advance their own ambition. They are the ones who turn the disadvantaged against the vulnerable. They are the proof that letting some accumulate wealth and power without limits is inevitably bad for the rest of society.

--

On how to strengthen democracy against subversive influences, see the proposals set out in Democracy SOS (Citizen Network): https://citizen-network.org/uploads/attachment/916/democracy-sos.pdf

See also the following articles:

‘Top 5 reasons billionaires are bad for the economy’ (Oxfam):

https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/top-5-ways-billionaires-are-bad-for-the-economy/

‘Ten Ways You Are Being Burned by Billionaires’ (Inequality.org): https://inequality.org/article/ten-ways-you-are-being-burned-by-billionaires/

‘When billionaires rule the world – A global threat to a viable human future’ (The Club of Rome): https://www.clubofrome.org/blog-post/korten-billionaires/

Civil Servants v Uncivil Sycophants

Heard any politician in office moaning lately about wanting to bring in their own people instead of being held back by these civil servants?

Such politicians invariably forget why it’s so important to have independently selected civil servants. That independence enables officials, chosen on the basis of their objectively assessed skills and experience, to analyse issues impartially and advise on how different approaches may work in solving problems. They can thus offer their political bosses their honest, expert appraisals, and depending on what the politicians decide, carry out their instructions in accordance with their in-depth understanding of how to implement policies.

Many Ministers in the UK, past and present, recognise that it is better to have reliable advice to guide their decisions than to act hastily on soundbites that might get nowhere at best, or badly backfire at worst. They appreciate that they are more likely to secure improvements for the country with the help of those with real capability and dedication to bring forward effective public policies.

But some politicians get frustrated when their careless promises, over ambitious commitments, or simply their pet projects, are reported by officials as unachievable upon close examination. In other cases, initiatives ordered to proceed despite warnings of insufficient budgets or unrealistic timescale end up being disappointment which is all too easily blamed on the officials tasked with delivering them.

From bemoaning civil servants who are too “slow”, too “reactionary”, too “woke’, to do as their political masters want, we could end up with calls for partisan recruitment. Instead of an independent process that selects candidates based on their experience, skills, and relevant achievements, we are told that senior appointments should be made by politicians on the basis of who will support their party political agenda, and irrespective of what relevant qualifications they may have.

But do we really want to move towards the US approach where each administration can sweep aside the key personnel appointed by the previous regime and start afresh. Where the people appointed have got appropriate skills and a track record in public service, the assessment of policy proposals and development of initiatives and programmes may still proceed in a broadly dependable manner, even if vital organisational knowledge is lost. However, it is also possible – as Trump’s second presidential term has shown – that the top jobs will just go to ‘yes’ men and women who will say anything the chief wants them to say, and who have no competence for the public policy role they are meant to lead.

The motivations for going into public service and private practice are very different. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a lot of money. But neither should there be any less respect for those who want to serve the public interest. It cannot bode well when, instead of recruiting people who have committed their career to dealing with public policy challenges, we have people who have only ever cared about their own commercial success parachuted in on a short-term basis to gratify the egoistic demands of the leader.

It should be remembered that corruption and incompetence were rife before the system of an independent civil service was introduced. It took many decades for it to be established. Let it not be dismantled by those who cannot bear to hear honest advice. 

The Tyrant’s Temptation

According to many surveys, an increasing number of people are indicating that they favour political leaders who would act without democratic restraints. Support for right-wing authoritarian parties has been growing across Europe. In the US, despite all the warnings about Trump’s readiness to follow Project 2025’s guide to dismantle all checks and balance, he was elected president again. In the UK, the party leader keenest to copy Trump’s autocratic approach and most vocal in getting rid of existing human rights protection without putting any safeguards in their place, is leading in the opinion polls.

Must we accept that we will all end up like the US and Hungary, and be at the mercy of leaders who will do whatever they want regardless of the consequences for others? History has shown that when enough people tip the balance to allow power to get into the hands of a Caesar, a Napoleon, a Mussolini, a Hitler, the will of one man would override the concerns of any elected senate or assembly, until absolute rule is entrenched [Note 1].

Clearly the moment to prevent tyrants (still donning their masks of ‘men of the people’) from taking the highest public office is when the people are still free to expose their flaws, and take action to block any imposition of dictatorial control. Let us look at five counter-measures that should be activated straightaway.

[1] Start spreading the news

Remind people what their flagship policies such as Brexit have done to ruin the economy, increase the cost of living, and lower employment prospects. Don’t let them shrug off every time one of their candidates or office holders gets found out about their offensive views on minorities, or how in practice they run the public bodies they control. 

[2] We do need more education

It cannot be controversial to ensure that history lessons cover the events that led to authoritarians winning over public support with false promises, and then imposing oppressive controls and policies that ruined their countries. At the same time, youth engagement should be revitalised to enable young people to learn the critical value of democratic cooperation in managing problems.

[3] We all stand together

We must reach out to influential members of all political parties who care about justice and accountability more than partisan advantages, and work together to oppose those seeking to take and abuse power. The growing tendency to attack impartial judges and disparage safeguards to protect innocent people can only be countered if enough politicians firmly push back.

[4] On His Majesty’s Special Service

Let us not leave the discussion about the allegiance of our public servants, especially those in law enforcement and the armed services, until a crisis erupts with an autocrat invoking his electoral mandate. Under the 1688 settlement, power rests ultimately with the people, and no leader can command servants of the Crown to deter, arrest, detain, or deport anyone without due process.

[5] Land of jobs and homes

In parallel with the above actions, responsible politicians should start delivering on job creation and support for transitioning between jobs (see for example: National Insurance+: a policy for jobs); more genuinely affordable homes to rent and buy; and reduced charges on water, energy and other utilities. Offering people what they really need is the best cure for siren politics.

A large number of people are tempted by the myth of a ‘strong’ leader rescuing them from all their troubles. But in truth, no one would have much of a future if tyrants were allowed to take power.

--

Note 1: Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoleon’s nephew), as the elected President of the second French Republic, organised a plebiscite which he won to become Emperor for life. Mussolini did not win any election, but was made Prime Minister of Italy by the king. He went on to obtain the support of the legislature to grant him dictatorial power for one year during which time he removed all democratic restraints on his position as leader.