Firstly, to know the nature of the umbrella movement, the definitions of civil disobedience protest, and riot have to be clarified. Civil disobedience was invented by Henry David Thoreau in 848. It was used to describe his rejection of paying the state tax imposed by the US government to carry out a war in Mexico (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 203). There are several features of civil disobedience protest (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 203) such as conscientiousness, communication, publicity, and nonviolence. Conscientiousness refers to the reason for disobedient breaking the law is the perception of the societal interests. Communication is that in the case of a flagrant violation of the law, a person usually has a forward-looking and backward-looking goal. She not only asks for her negation and condemnation of a particular law or policy but also raises public concern about this particular issue, thereby causing changes in the law or policy. Publicity means that disobedience is not concealed or secret but it merely informs the legal authorities openly and fairly. And, violence and civil disobedience are contradictory. On the other hand, a riot means that it is a form of civil disorder characterized by unorganized groups slamming in sudden violence, destruction, or other criminal incidents. Riots usually involve the destruction and destruction of private and public property ( Social Science LibreTexts, 209). Besides, it can be seen that the rioters usually have no conscientiousness or fear of legal sanctions. For example, there are commonalities between the 20 England Riots and the 206 Mong Kok Riot, the rioters both wore masks to prevent their faces were recognized through CCTV. Therefore, it can be seen that violence and the use of force always will not be a concern in civil disobedience protests except in self-defense when facing armed suppression. However, rioters always damage society and attack police officers aggressively. There is a huge difference between civil disobedience protests and riots. After the definition of civil disobedience protest and riot are clarified, it is easy to see the nature of the umbrella movement is identical to ci
vil disobedience protest or riot. The three initiators, Chu Yiu Ming, Chan Kin Man, and Tai Yiu Ting, surrendered after the umbrella movement had occurred. Also, they informed the police and public of the start date and the end date of central. Besides, the participants revolted against the police officers only when they were thrown 87 tear gas bombs, a kind of self-defense. Most importantly, the umbrella movement aimed to strive for universal suffrage, a public interest and ideal. Thus, it can be concluded that the nature of the umbrella movement is a civil disobedience protest.
More than ten thousand protesters participated in the umbrella movement but there were different reasons for participation among them. In the beginning, there were around 30,000 people on the streets but the number of participants grew to 50,000 after the police officers used tear gas bombs against the protesters ( South China Morning Post, 204). It shows that the aim of some participants who participated in the umbrella movement was to protect and support the unarmed and helpless protesters. They could not bear to see the protesters who did not act in any violent behaviour, treated with tear gas bombs. Therefore, the most important thing to those protesters was not the achievement of universal suffrage, but the safety and life of their compatriots. The second type of protesters followed the herd, they did not understand the purpose of the civil disobedience protest but seeking for conformity. This kind of conformity can be regarded as compliance, an individual accepts impact because he or she hopes to reach an approving reaction from others especially the significant ones such as family and friends (McLeod, 206). The way of thinking of these kinds of protesters may be that they do not want to miss any collective memory in their social circle. The last and most important type of protesters was that they wanted universal suffrage could be implemented to pursue the expected democracy. They hoped that their chief executive could be generated by one man one vote after the National PeopleΒs Congress had decided in 2007 that the chief executive would be generated through universal suffrage.