Whether it is mainland China or Taiwan, we can be safe to note that a majority of the

current Chinese and Taiwanese students are enjoying the efforts from an era of persons who

shaped both the political and economic spectrum of both nations. It is rather interesting to

note the fact that the current crop of students in both nations appears to be apolitical but

instead they are more materialistic and pragmatic to the world around them. in both cases,

there were particular protest that were seen as the key movements that brought about the

major paradigm shifts in the political diaphragm of the nations. To better decipher the

concept, this treatise shall seek to compare and contrast the student movements in China and

Taiwan in respect of context and developments. In so doing, it shall move to try and decipher

as to whether or not students in mainland China can be and will be as a force for social and

political change in the next decade. It is very interesting to note the manner in which this

research has taken. By making a comparative study, much lies to be observed. For example,

one can gain critical insights into the way in which various authorities rule out their citizenry.

As a means to an end, the term development here infers to the varying goals of the

movement, the manner of student mobilization with regards to numbers and organization and

the manner of student participation in the protest. Moreover, the paper shall look at the extent

to which the students were able to shape the political spectrum of the society in which they

lived in. whilst at it, the paper shall make snippets as to how environmental factors favored or

hindered the political participation of the students. Last but not least, we shall look at the

issue of identity; was identity critical in shaping the manner in which the movement

unfolded?

For a greater and more refined focus in the discussion that will ensue, the Tiananmen

Square pro – democracy movement of April – June 1989 and the Wild Lily movements of

March 1990 shall be examined. The main focus would be to look into the political

environment that shaped the particular movement. However, before undertaking on the
discussion, briefs shall first be made on the actual movement that occurred during the period

before proceeding to look into the comparisons.

The Tiananmen Square protest kicked off on the 15th day of April 1989 following the

death of Hu Yaobang the then Communist Party General Secretary. His death could not have

come at a worse time as from the implementation of the socialist market economy from the

1970s under Deng Xiaoping, the economic reforms seemed not to be working hence spurring

inflation, limited careers for the growing number of university students and sad to note, the

growing stench of corruption that was seeking from the party elites. Initially, the students had

hoped to pass the message of intensified economic reform and market liberalization.

However, as the masses grew, the movement took the stage for calls for greater freedoms and

political rights which then escalated to riots and looting in Xi’an, Shanghai, Wuhan and

Changsha; the party declared martial law on 20th May. It is important to note the fact that

when the People’s Liberation Army moved in to stem the chaos, the resulting deaths were not

from the square but from the streets of Beijing. As expected, there was much international

condemnation and but from within, the party expelled the sympathizer to the movements such

as the General Secretary, Zhao Ziyang.

A less illustrative scenario is seen with the Wild Lily student movement. It is

important to make a note as to the reason behind the colloquial name used by the protestors;

during the demonstrations, they wore white Formosan lilies which were seen by many as a

hallmark of a ancient tradition of theirs. The six – day March student demonstration was in

the form of a sit – in who did their biddings at the Memorial Square in Taipei. Whereas it

initially had simply drawn in students from the National Taiwan University, it soon drew in

well over 300000 persons all calling for very direct and pertinent democratic issues; the

immediate and direct elections of both the Vice – President and President of the Republic of

China (Taiwan) plus the call for fresh elections to select new representative to the National
Assembly of the country. The demonstrations were so fruitful to the extent that the newly

elected President, Lee Teng – Hui welcomed about fifty students to the presidential palace

thanking them for their efforts.

With such a brief in mind, we can then move to make note of some of the similarities

that are seen in both these movements. The main underlying similarities that can be seen from

the subtle discussion can be said to be the underlying causes as to reasons for the rise of the

demonstrations and also the use of symbols of unity. The paper shall make a snippet look into

the various causes from which similarities can then be drawn.

The case of the People’s Republic of China case was similar but broader; to them, it

can be noted that there were three main reasons that spurred the rising. First and foremost

was the case of the series of reforms that had been passed by the Third Plenum of the

Eleventh Communist Party Congress back in 1978. The idea was to relax the economic

system that had been set up by the late Mao Zedong which had proved with time not to be

very effective in the then global market dimensions. Initially, it can be noted that there was

much appraisals from the general public but with time, the process was appearing to be

dogged down by both nepotism and corruption. With nepotism, it is important to note that

with the highly communist society, the elite were calling most of the shots in the country.

Sooner rather than later, we see that the state partially controlled pricing system became weak

and unwarranted inflation prompting massive job losses especially from state owned

corporations and reduced government spending on socio – economic areas such as

educational and vocational training. Taking this main point into consideration and

compounding it with the amount of resources that was being accorded to social reforms.

From 1978, the intellectuals had hoped to spearhead the sector through taking charge of the

newly opened universities that inevitably saw a growing number of enrollments. The failure

occurred where the economy was more geared towards basic services, agriculture and foreign
investment but then again, majority if the universities were centered towards the social

sciences. The end result was simple; a majority of the graduates were missing out on jobs.

Moreover, the few available state jobs were given on the basis of nepotism; private

companies were no longer compelled to higher graduates by the party.

Sooner than later, the economic issues adapted to take up political issues in which

both the intellectuals and the students saw need to be more involved in the political future of

the nation. These group of persons then opted to hit at the soft spots attacking the legitimacy

of socialist ideologies whilst the nation was taking upon capitalist ideologies. The party

leadership was soon engaged in heated arguments over how to go about; whether plurality of

ideas should be entertained and as to whether political liberalization was in favor. With such

confusion stemming from the top, the movement gained moral to take it to the streets.

Across the straits, the closure of the 1980s had seen sweeping changes taking place in

the tiny island in which martial law was finally abolished, press freedom was guaranteed and

more importantly, more political freedom such as the formation of political; parties was

enshrined. Sooner rather than later, the people could air their disaffection towards the current

status quo in the nation. When the demonstrators made a peaceful convening at the Chang

Kai – shek Memorial Hall, they made direct demands which to them had been the only

hindrance to the reform process. They called for: the immediate dissolution of the National

Assembly followed by national elections to elect their new leaders. To make that more

effective, the temporary provisions that had been placed on the national constitution were to

be abolished. Moreover, they wished to have a convention for the National Affairs

Conference that would overlook the timetable for both economic and political reform.

As can be clearly seen, there are close similarities in the two movements, both appear

to have a political diaphragm to it. They all began to call for the pertinent political changes

that had been way long overdue in the respective countries. It is interesting to note the fact
that the two nations had adopted different economic systems but yet again, they had similar

problems. It has ben a popular belief that majority of the communist states had a rather

stringent political atmosphere in that the civil rights of many had been forsaken for the

greater good of the nation. Well, for the case mainland China, this appears to be very true; the

society was still coming to terms with the effect of Mao’s rule and when room for reforms

were open, the intellectuals were not entirely patient to sit and wait for events to unfold. But

it becomes interesting to observe a similar political climate in Taiwan. One would have

expected that Chang Kai – shek would have set up a politically free Taiwan. However, we

need not to be too hard on the regime as there is a perfectly good reason as to why that was

the case. With the communist threat looming from the mainland, the government had to be

careful not to allow spies within its society. Therefore, the common point that can be seen is

that both had political underpinnings that spurred the movements. Even where the case for

mainland China was economic issues, these soon matured to bear political tension.

On the question of the commonality in the environmental factors that paved way for

the movement, it can be noted that in both situations, the government/ party had laid the

foundations that allowed the commons to gain moral in calling for more civil liberties. As

such, some due credit should be accorded to the authorities for making the stride for this

endeavor. The main limitation would be in the slow pace in which it took. From this, we can

then lay a premise and comment that were it not for the slow pace, the movements might not

have occurred. Moreover, the student movements ought not to be condemned to have been

born out of malice but from the sheer desperation for the society clamoring for its right to

live.

With regards to the follow up question set up in the research question, would the

current crop of students take up charge in leading for reforms? On the basis of the above

discussion, the answer would be on the negative. The main reason would lie in the causes for
the revolt; the current state of the Chinese economy is very good, it currently stands at Triple

A Ratings. As such, unlike back in the 1980s, there are no current major economic shortfalls

that would cause such an agitation. However, there is still rampant corruption in the country

albeit the present party officials are making efforts in trying to make sure nothing spills over;

on this basis, student movements are not in any way going to gain momentum at the present

conditions in the country. Moreover, there has been much scholarship papers written on the

fact that the current crop of student in mainland China are apolitical; most are said to be more

engaged in the westernizing influences from abroad and the few who are interested in the

party politics are then said to be in the armed forces. Very few young Chinese are currently

enrolled in the party leadership hierarchy.

Another similarity that has been seen in both movements is the use of symbolism in

the movements. From the initial description in the first part of the discussion, we note that

both movements made use of public monuments in laying siege the authorities for its rights.

For the case of mainland China, they opted for the massive Tiananmen Square for their

congregation whereas the Taiwanese case was the use of the Chang Kai – shek Memorial

Hall. One can comment that the use of the latter was more of a symbolism to the fact that

Chang had moved into the island during his exile during the Chinese Revolution of 1949

under the pretext that the new China would accord better living to its populace. As such, the

monument served as a defining reminder to the promise of better living to the Taiwanese

people. This promise was held dearly by the populace as not so long ago, they were under the

mercy of the Imperial Japanese Army who are said to have committed atrocities. Ergo, the

use of the place served as a reminder to both the citizenry and its administration of the past

and what they held dear most to themselves.

On the other hand, the Tiananmen Square held an equally resounding importance to

the Chinese people as it was put into construction after as far back as 1415 A.D during the
rule of the Qing Dynasty symbolizing the emancipation of the populace from the scourge of

domination by imperialists. It is noted to be the third largest city square in the planet. Having

the movement in such as place laid a similar symbolic message to the Communist Party just

as the way the Taiwanese had put it. As a show of the respect the PRC authorities had for

their national monuments, it is reported that the ensuing deaths that happened in the country

did not happen in the square but along the streets of Beijing. It is from this reason that one

can make a note of some of the party sympathizers who were later expelled; it is a testament

to the fact the message was sent across the party leaders of the inevitable need for change.

Another critical symbolic gesture that is common is the fact that the movements took

place mainly within the capitals of the two nations. The effect can be easily be said that the

demonstrators needed to show the rest of the towns and countries that the government can

indeed be brought to its knees from its very epic centre. Plus, such a gesture would push the

authorities to act fact to either respond to the calls of the citizenry or retaliate to their actions.

Perhaps a key difference between the movements in the use of symbolism lies in the

Formosan lily that was in use in Taiwan. It is important to note that the lily grows in

abundance all over the island, but only in the island; its use by the demonstrators can be said

to be their way of saying that their demonstration was in good faith, peaceful and vitality. By

the fact that the lily is only seen in the island, it then implies that the demonstrators were

trying to showcase an act of autonomy to the rest of the word. It is perhaps owing to this

reason that the way in which the Taiwanese government responded was not as radical and

reactionary as seen in mainland. Without a shadow of doubt, the lily can be said to have had a

unifying factor on the people hence all the more the reason as to why we see the movement

lasting only six days but it then brought the government to its knees.
 Moreover, the use of the symbols was very critical in framing up the identity of the

movement to the extent that a majority of the people joined in the movements owing to the

cultural significance of the various identities used.

With regards to the question of whether symbolism can move the students in the

current mainland China to protest, the answer would be very much affirmative. With the

events that happened in the place such as the whole cultural views of the “Tank Man”, the

facility would always be a source of inspiration and reminder to the populace of the

importance of the authorities allowing the people to enjoy their civil liberties.

The last notable similarity that can be drawn from the two student movements lies in

the way in which the two were pre - organized. In both situations, there were observations

that towards the end of the 1980s, both nations had seen the students grouping themselves

within student clubs where they would get a platform to air their grievances to one another

and perhaps come up with a common solution to the quagmire. For the case of Taipei, the

various students moved to put themselves into groupings particularly those who were in the

National Taiwan University which was the bedrock of the Wild Lily Movement that saw an

initial 6000 thousand students grow to be over 300000. For the case of mainland China, the

groupings were inter – university making them even more popular and influential. Some of

the student groupings that were seen in mainland China during the movement included

Democracy Salon and Caodi Salon. A key element of the discussions that were involved

were those revolving having the students participate in the political spectrum of their country

with a greater zeal. The underlying reason for the beck and call was the fact that they were

the youths who would later on take up the leadership and as such they ought to be masters of

their own destiny at all costs.

It can be argued that the student groupings in essence can be considered to be status

symbols for the students. For the first time, one was able to have a say in matters that affected
them. As such, its popularity grew drawing in more students into the movement to the extent

that the groupings were seen as a substitute for the respective nationalist party in the nations.

Moreover, the groupings acted as a form of identity that would be instrumental in shaping the

course and drive of the movement. In not so many words, the associations can be taken to be

a clear indication that the students were very able and competent with shaping their own

destiny. It is critical to take note of the fact in some cases such as in mainland China, the

discussions in the student groupings were closely aided by leading scholars such as Professor

Fang Lizhi.

The current setup in mainland China does allow for the citizens to move to put

themselves into groupings of their choice as so long as one does not be as so naïve as to seek

to form a political association as the nation is a one party where the Chinese Communist

Party is supreme. On this basis therefore, we can deduce that the current crop of students in

mainland China are not in anyway better placed to make a national movements. With the

party making close monitoring of the internet; it would be next to impossible to have an

“Arab Spring” happen in mainland China. Furthermore, as indicated earlier in the discussion,

there is growing analysis that makes a note of the current crop of students in mainland China

as to being apolitical. Ergo, the students cannot be seen as to being a force to reckon with in

mainland China in the current decade.

Just as was the case when Aristotle undertook to study the similarities in the Greek

city states, he did make an effort to try and examine the underlying differences in the

operations of the cities. As such, the discussion would now move to take note of how the

movements were different. On a subtle and normative level, it can be said that the difference

laid in the way in whish the movements were organized and more importantly, the resulting

effects of the movements. For example, a quick read on both the movements in Wikipedia

would clearly show the difference in the breadth of the events. Whereas one lasted seven
weeks, the other lasted six days! From such a timeframe, one would be able to decipher the

fact that the two were very different in many ways. For the interest if brevity and a more

focused discussion, the treatise shall focus on three main differences in the two pro –

democracy movements: the involvement of principle leaders/ personalities in the movement,

the methodology used by the demonstrators and the nature of the government response.

Unlike the Taipei movements, the ones in mainland China were seen as to having

principle personality aid in shaping the ideologies in the movement. As the clamor for the

movement was growing in the mainland, university lecturers were keen to aid the students in

shaping their ideologies. As noted in the first part of the discussion, the graduating students

did not have many avenues for seeking employment a fact that sought the sympathy from

their dons. Moreover, a good number of new universities established were centered on the

teaching of the social sciences, programs which in themselves were bedrocks for free

thinking. So why is it the same could not be said about the Taiwanese case? It is important to

note that the mainland China had been having more or less the same problem for an extended

period of time and thus the issues that the students were raising were not just seen on their

end but also from all quarters hence sympathy was easy to come by. A notable personality

that was instrumental in shaping the minds was Professor Fang Lizhi who upon his arrival at

the mainland but the end of 1986, he began holding caucuses with interested students. For the

case of Taipei, we can deduce that their problems had not been as extensive. Plus, the

National Assembly leaders are said to have momentarily joined in the movement later. This

plus the fact that the Wild Lily Movement did not last that long are the underlying reasons as

to why the movement did not have particular principle leaders on the ground shaping the

minds of the youths.

With regards to the extent in which the movement was effective from the efforts of

the university lecturers and professors, it can be said that it did move to create an aura of
legitimacy in terms of drawing in those students who were not entirely sure of the need for

the cause or the authenticity and justification for making the rise. To date, mainland China

has notable leaders within the universities however; it remains unknown as to the extent in

which they would be willing to move to shape the minds of the students in undertaking

another similar movement. The underlying reason as to why this would be hard to point out

lies from the fact that after the Tiananmen Square Movement, the authorities were engaged in

purges that were seen as to not sparing anyone.

More differences emanate from the nature of the response that was seen from the

government. For the case of Taipei, there was a more positive response from the government

in that, the authorities allowed themselves to give in to the demands of the demonstrating

students; no wonder it lasted for only six days. The case of Tiananmen was strikingly

different. Initially, with the presence of student sympathisers such as General Secretary Zhao

Ziyang, there was an opportunity for the student leaders through the Autonomous Student

Union to make consultative dialogue with a CCP delegation. However, with the growing

mistrust on the part of students, this was not to be the case. The then principle leader of the

student union, Wang Dan was more radical and opted to take up more radical measures to

bring the party to its knees. The party was more open to the media in the early part of the

movement; the Sino – Soviet Summit recognised the need for more democracy within the

communist states; Gorbachev was already well into his glasnost and pestroika policies.

The tide took a dramatic turn with the martial law declaration by Deng on 20th May.

With the military involved, it was not too long before the demonstration became disastrous

with many terming it as a massacre. It is important for us to recognise the immense use of

force on the part of the CCP. Nevertheless, one has to be cognizant of the fact that party did

try to make headway with the students but then the students wanted too much too soon. By

the end of the turmoil, it has been reported that as many as 10000 might have lost their lives.
 One would be forgiven to beg for an insight as to the reason behind the reactions from

the authorities. The case of Taipei can be argued from the fact that the nation had very close

unwritten ties with the USA and as such, the way in which it reacted was very important for

the purposes of public relations. Moreover, the Wild Lily Movement occurred after that of the

disastrous one in the mainland. As such, we can argue that the authorities did not wish to see

a repeat of the same especially where there was a lot of international condemnation that was

thrown at mainland China. Bearing in mind of the fact that Taiwan was and still is trying to

gain international recognition even from its closest allies the USA; for sure they had to ensure

that their books were as clean as possible. Moreover, the authorities in Taipei felt the need to

show the clear cut differences between a market economy and a state – controlled one.

Nevertheless, mainland China can be said to have shown their muscles all in the pretext of

telling the rest of the world that their ideology and culture was strong and any unwarranted

opposition to it would be met by an equally unwarranted show of force.

With the current show of strength from the communist party in mainland China, it

would be very difficult for the students to try and put a similar act. In recent times, opposition

towards the party ideals has resulted in many unfounded arrest such as the recent scandals

drawn up on Bo Xilai.

The last main difference between the two movements is in the way in which the actual

demonstrations were done. Taipei as discussed earlier in the paper saw the demonstration

progress peacefully with the principle method being used by the students being sit – ins. In

contrast, the case for mainland China saw the demonstration turning violent with the

demonstrators resulting in the rioting and looting. In particular, the cities of Shanghai, Xi’an,

Wuhan and Nanjing saw the demonstrators blocking public utilities such as bridges, roads

and railway lines. In other scenarios, they roughed up public officials. When the People’s

Liberation Army was sent in, the demonstrators moved to loot shops and anything else that
they could set upon both their hands and eyes on. With such an anti – social behavior in play,

Deng saw it fit to use force on what he called the armed resistance of communism on the

western imperialism.

The underlying difference as to why there was a sharp difference between the two

movements can be owed to several factors. In Taipei, the protestors used the symbolic white

lily that was a mark of peace and unity; there was no way in which the participating

demonstrator would have moved to transgress the sanctity of the movement. For the other

case, it is important to note that there had been growing dissident on the political elite who

had been accused of both corruption and negligence and who had the added value of being

too arrogant to come to the drawing table. Moreover, with the apparent use of the People’s

Liberation Army, it became obvious to the demonstrators that the only way to get their point

across would to move to cause anarchy in the republic.

As stated earlier, it would be very difficult for the current crop of students in mainland

China to engage in such anti – social behavior without the facing dire consequences from the

authorities. However, with the Arab Spring, one can move to asset that they could seek a

disturbing source of inspiration in getting their point across.

As a concluding remark, just like the Greek cities that Aristotle had moved to make a

close examination of, we can note that there both sharp similarities and differences in the

manner in which the student movements were organized. Nevertheless, within the various

similarities, we saw pertinent but subtle differences. After a careful examination of the

various points, we tried to see whether or not the particular factor mentioned could in any

way lead up to another student movement in mainland China. In most cases, the result was on

the negative with in very few cases where it stood a slight chance of happening. In a more

direct fashion, it is the view of this paper to assert the point that students in mainland China
cannot in any way be seen as to being instrumental in being the focal point for social and

political changes in the next decade.

Works Cited

Wright, T. (2001). The Perils of Protest: State Repression and Student Activism in China and

Taiwan. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.