1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

The protests didn't start as a revolution, but as a funeral. When Hu Yaobang, a deposed reformist leader who had championed political openness, died in April 1989, students gathered in Tiananmen Square to mourn him. This mourning quickly pivoted into a protest against "crony capitalism" and a demand for greater transparency, freedom of the press, and government accountability.

At its peak, nearly a million people occupied the square. While often framed purely as a "pro-democracy" movement in the West, the participants were a diverse and sometimes fractured coalition. Some activists wanted Western-style liberal democracy, while workers were more concerned with 30% inflation and the perceived corruption of "princelings"—the children of elite party officials who were profiting from China's transition to a market economy.

The movement lasted seven weeks largely because the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was paralyzed by a high-stakes internal split. General Secretary Zhao Ziyang advocated for dialogue and conciliation, believing the students' concerns about corruption were legitimate. Opposing him were hardliners led by Premier Li Peng and elder statesman Deng Xiaoping, who viewed the protests as a "counter-revolutionary riot" designed to overthow the party.

By late May, the hardliners won the power struggle. Zhao Ziyang was purged and placed under house arrest—where he remained until his death 16 years later—and martial law was declared. This internal victory signaled that the state would prioritize "stability" and party survival above all else, a doctrine that has defined Chinese governance ever since.

On the night of June 3 and the early morning of June 4, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) advanced toward central Beijing using assault rifles and tanks. Most of the violence occurred not inside the square itself, but on the roads leading to it, such as Changan Avenue. Civilians and protesters attempted to block the military's path using buses and human chains; the military responded with lethal force.

The death toll remains a state secret and a matter of intense debate. The official Chinese government figure was roughly near 300 (including soldiers), while the Chinese Red Cross initially estimated 2,600 deaths, and foreign journalists reported figures ranging from several hundred to several thousand. The iconic "Tank Man"—an unidentified individual who blocked a column of tanks the following day—became the global symbol of this lopsided defiance.

In the decades since, the CCP has achieved a near-total "rectification" of the event within mainland China. It is the ultimate "black hole" in the Chinese internet; every June, keywords related to the date, the "Goddess of Democracy," or even cryptic emojis are scrubbed by automated filters. Younger generations in China often grow up with no knowledge of the massacre, or are taught a narrative where "clearing the square" was a necessary, peaceful action to ensure the economic boom that followed.

Internationally, the massacre ended the "honeymoon period" between the West and China that had characterized the 1980s. It triggered long-standing arms embargos and solidified a global perception of the CCP as a regime willing to use ultimate violence to maintain domestic control. What was briefly a symbol of potential opening became the foundation for the modern Chinese surveillance state.