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