Within the course of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been debate over whether the structure of government within a country impacts its response to handling and containing COVID cases, particularly in autocracies.
Originally surfacing in China, a country with an authoritarian government, the outbreak spread quickly across the globe. Chinese President, Xi Jinping had major success quelling the spread within the country as “Strong authoritarian regimes excel at mass mobilization” (Yuen Ang)
It is often accepted within many nations that with extraordinary circumstances - often come necessary extraordinary measures. Within these circumstances comes a perfect opportunity for autocratic leaders to seize further control. According to an article published in The New York Times in April, "Critics say some governments are using the public health crisis as cover to seize new powers that have little to do with the outbreak, with few safeguards to ensure that their new authority will not be abused." Some of the autocratic regimes who have seized upon the movement include Cambodia, Egypt, El Salvador, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, and Vietnam." (Foreign Affairs)
Tools such as contact tracing provide an opportunity for breaches of privacy to occur in the fact that governments can use the spread of disease as a necessary explanation for breaching the privacy of individuals. The Chinese government has been "Collecting a vast swatch of users' data -- including their location -- China's quarantine apps have empowered authorities to use big data to locate threats and take preventive action" (Politico)
Photo Courtesy of CNN
Although Xi Jinping and his government were able to quell the spread of disease, questions arise surrounding the cost at which the spread was controlled. The extreme quarantine measures China adopted appeared reminiscent of wartime. The government enacted measures "banning the private use of cars, forbidding residents from leaving their apartment without permission and requiring purchasers of cold medicine to disclose their temperature address, and identification number at the pharmacy." (NPR)
Other mechanisms like free speech can also be threatened in the midst of disease. In Jordan, another autocratic country that successfully contained the spread, the King has “have instituted a series of measures which have limited the space for public debates on the government’s policies (Jorgen) Speech has been threatened in other autocratic governments by detaining critics, health care workers and journalists during the pandemic.
Photo Courtesy of Egypt Independent
Although China, Jordan and Singapore have seen success, other autocracies have struggled to contain the spread, including Iran. The Iranian government downplayed the severity of COVID, and then proceeded to sit on thousands of tests, which skyrocketed both coronavirus cases as well as unrest amongst Iranians, as well as distrust in the government. (Radio Free Europe)
Democracies are no different than autocracies in the fact that they have also had a plethora of failures and successes. The United States, Spain, and Italy have all struggled to contain the virus, experiencing high case counts and poorly enforced safety measures. But others like Germany, Finland and New Zealand have performed amongst the best in the world.
In order for safety measures to succeed, the people must be willing and voluntary to participate in them. According to an artice from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, public trust is what is essential for a successful pandemic response. With high trust in government comes the ability to enforce lockdowns and quarantines. Today, public trust in government doesn’t seem to align with democracies or autocracies.
According to the Edelman Trust Barometer, some of the most autocratic states have some of the highest numbers of trust from their citizens such as Singapore and China (Carnegie) While some democratic states like the United States have low levels of public trust.
CIn the following years, we’ll be able to compare the responses of autocratic governments more accurately. But for now, what seems apparent is that trust in government is essential in containing the spread of disease for democracies. Pandemic responses are not necessarily equated to type of governance, but heavily influenced by a country's resources and capacity in tandem with citizen’s perception of their own leaders.
Sources:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/08/government-privacy-coronavirus-china-308105
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/world/europe/coronavirus-governments-power.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0872-3
https://reliefweb.int/report/jordan/jordan-and-covid-19-effective-response-high-cost
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2020-06-13/democracy-versus-pandemic
1 comment:
I really like your point. Just want to mention that in China the trust and loyalty towards government has been intentionally cultivated under the one-party rule. Media and education are controlled to spread patriotism.
After the global outbreak of Covid-19, China has closed its borders to its own citizens abroad to prevent re-enter of the virus. 0.1% of Chinese overseas have the chance to return home. At a great cost of their rights, as well as rights of those who were locked up inside the country, China got the pandemic under control. What's most wrong about this is that nobody thinks there's anything wrong with it, because we grew up being taught to sacrifice for the good of the majority.
Post a Comment