Governance and Coronavirus

The magnitude and intensity of the COVID-19 pandemic has invoked a large-scale response by governments of different countries. Whether democratic or autocratic, nations have chosen their respective strategies in dealing with the outbreak.

Authoritarian governments have imposed stiflingsecurity measures in the coronavirus-afflicted areas and deployed invasive tech systems. Countries such as China and Iran have not only withheld vital information from their citizens but also underreported cases and downplayed the intensity of the disease. Media reporting has been severely clamped in such countries with regards to actual numbers, testing and the spread. Mandatory geographic quarantines in such areas have been brutally repressive.

The nature of the pandemic and the fear of the unknown have placed the state in a pivotal role, allowing authoritarian regimes to amass more power. The Hungarian Prime Minister can now rule by a decree, the Israeli Prime Minister has sanctioned intrusive surveillance and the Bolivian government has postponed elections. Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha of Thailand has imposed stifling censorship of the press and journalists are being targeted for criticising the government’s control strategies.Singapore, too, suppressed dissenting voices.

The response has proven effective to a certain degree and these trends are being increasingly adopted by democratic nations. Traditional democracies like Britain and India have imposed country-wide lockdowns as well as curbedinternational traffic and even detained people. The police in India have been committing excesses under the pretext of managing the decorum of a lockdown. The USA has encroached into private data of international airlines in the garb of contact tracing.

One can argue whether such state excesses in a bid to control the spread of a fatal and infectious disease such as Covid-19 , was necessary and possibly the last recourse. In Italy for instance, leaked information about quarantining of certain areas in northern Italy , created mayhem and people dispersed in large number subsequently spreading the virus along. Therefore, putting forth the argument of whether the government of the day must execute discomforting plans covertly. Nevertheless, another fall out of discreet plans is unpreparedness and the subsequent large-scale exoduses of migrants to their native regions, again taking the viral outreach to previously unaffected regions.

It is also a matter of debate as to whether the successful control of the infection by authoritarian regimes is to be believed given the extreme levels of secrecy maintained by such countries. However, the response of countries such as South Korea and Taiwan has been mindful of their democratic framework, whilst producing a robust and an exemplary strategy. South Korea carried out extensive testing and maintained full public disclosure regarding the extent of the infection spread. Thus, the Koreans managed the outbreak without any lockdowns or compromise on civil liberties.

While dealing with national calamities, states tend to act decisively in a utilitarian fashion rather than in an egalitarian manner. The authorities need to slow down the onslaught of the disease, buy time to come up with treatments, vaccines and streamline public health. Hence, radical measures that challenge popular opinion and legal procedures may be adopted.Post the pandemic, the increased state surveillance may become an accepted norm. The infringement of personal and civil liberties may be conditioned into the general practice. The changes shall impact public life, polity and economy. The need of the hour is credible leadership, developing accountability in executive action and protection of private data. Rule of Law coupled with disclosure of crucial informationwill help mobillise public support and execute policies smoothly.