Two thing come to mind as a starting point: Negotiation and focusing on building Hong Kong's economy.
Negotiation: The truth is, HK politics is very much like American politics. It consists of people blocking any progress on anything because the two sides are so deeply divided. Instead, I suggest making an honest effort to negotiate and take things step by step. For example, the central issue to the protests - the universal suffrage framework described in the Basic Law is strictly better than the current system. Accepting it while signaling that something even better is desired and will continue to be brought up would have been more productive. (Note that the whitepaper came out after the threat to occupy central).
Economy - One of the subtexts of the whole issue is Hong Kong's decreasing relevance in relation to China and indeed on the world stage. The stronger HK is, the more leverage HK has. Instead, real wages are barely increasing, rent continues to skyrocket, and there is basically no economy besides finance - and in that HK's competitive advantage shrinks every year. Instead of saying things like "we are willing to sacrifice the economy if it gives us true democracy", I think it should be accepted that destroying the economy is not likely going to get democrats what they want, and that a better economy would a) free up more people to be able to worry about politics rather than just putting food on the table, and b) make China think harder about killing the golden goose.
Occupy Wallstreet was a game of brinksmanship, but unfortunately that only works when both sides have something to lose. China has nothing to lose today.
It's more like the previous 150 years were ruled by benevolent dictators like Linus so relatively few people complained, but now it's turning into something like XFree86 so people instead wanted to become like Debian.
The people in Hong Kong demanded the democratic reforms, however they never got universal suffrage while an outpost of the UK, which is something the UK should quite frankly be utterly ashamed of.
Who has a 'true' democracy? In the US all candidates are vetted by business leaders and party backers, and 2 parties are hardly any more democratic than 1 big one...
A democratic system that is being abused is better than no system of democracy at all. There are many efforts in the USA to get money out of politics and try to get true democracy again. Those efforts are happening within a democratic system, that you seem to be taking for granted, of which Hong Kong and China do not have.
First of all, you must not have read anything about the HK situation, because they ARE being given the right to vote, candidates just have to be approved by Beijing (which is the problem).
Second, do you really think there's no democratic mechanisms at all in China? The communist party still needs to chose leaders from within itself...
And I'd argue that it's better to know one is under a dictatorship than to think one is free whilst being oppressed...
Finally, things in China aren't that bad, especially considering the past. Things are changing there, always for the better, I wouldn't be surprised if they're democratic by 2020. But it has to be at their pace, on their terms. Look how they embraced capitalism...
I'm from Hong Kong, I'm sitting in Central Hong Kong right now. Read again what I said. If you think being able to vote between 2 or 3 CCP approved candidates is a real democratic system then I don't know what to say to you.
No less democratic than being able to choose Democrat or GOP. Freedom in the US is an illusion.
Do you think any amount of protests in the US would change anything at all? The protesters would be arrested, beaten, then charged with crimes and convicted by corrupt judges, and the whole memory of the affair would be swiftly swept under the rug by the mainstream media, who would be pressured by various government agencies to forget about it...
Protests don't change a damn thing in western countries, because the whole illusion is propagated by idiots who buy into the government propaganda. What did Occupy Wall Street change? Not a damn thing. Ferguson? Again, nothing.
> No less democratic than being able to choose Democrat or GOP.
Wrong, it's much less democratic because it isn't just (A) which names are preprinted on the ballot or (B) candidates likely to be elected. No, you literally cannot make a valid choice beyond those pre-approved by Beijing.
> Protests don't change a damn thing in western countries
You're telling me that every single change to the US since ~1870 has been from something other than protests?
Give up or emigrate. The CCP aren't stupid and they'd prefer a Hong Kong with an imploded economy and massive emigration because they sent in the PLA to one in which they backed down over protests and showed everyone they can be beaten.
Negotiation: The truth is, HK politics is very much like American politics. It consists of people blocking any progress on anything because the two sides are so deeply divided. Instead, I suggest making an honest effort to negotiate and take things step by step. For example, the central issue to the protests - the universal suffrage framework described in the Basic Law is strictly better than the current system. Accepting it while signaling that something even better is desired and will continue to be brought up would have been more productive. (Note that the whitepaper came out after the threat to occupy central).
Economy - One of the subtexts of the whole issue is Hong Kong's decreasing relevance in relation to China and indeed on the world stage. The stronger HK is, the more leverage HK has. Instead, real wages are barely increasing, rent continues to skyrocket, and there is basically no economy besides finance - and in that HK's competitive advantage shrinks every year. Instead of saying things like "we are willing to sacrifice the economy if it gives us true democracy", I think it should be accepted that destroying the economy is not likely going to get democrats what they want, and that a better economy would a) free up more people to be able to worry about politics rather than just putting food on the table, and b) make China think harder about killing the golden goose.
Occupy Wallstreet was a game of brinksmanship, but unfortunately that only works when both sides have something to lose. China has nothing to lose today.