There have been contrasts generally between how
authoritarian and free States have confronted the pandemic of the novel
coronavirus, despite the necessity of the latter to impose restrictions on free
movement and assemblies to protect public health, and in their relative
successes, but authoritarianism is not advantageous, as despotic regimes argue.
A related observation is about the
role of ideology in the degree of restrictiveness, and whether such measures
were excessive, and effectiveness in both free and unfree States. Despite a general American political dynamic
of contrasts between how Trumpist government officials and non-Trumpists have
responded, no right-left difference is generally necessarily discernable, even
in America, but especially internationally, in restrictiveness and effectiveness
in responding to the threat, based strictly on ideology. With some extreme exceptions, nationalist
illiberalism, the restrictions have not been too restrictive, and, in regard to
effectiveness, with the exception of far-left ideology and Trumpism in America, competence
is more a factor for effectiveness than ideology.
An argument advanced by authoritarian
regimes, citing the drastic measures taken by Communist China against pandemic,
where the outbreak began, is that authoritarianism is better suited to mitigate
a pandemic than free representative republican government, but the relative
effectiveness of free States like South Korea and Taiwan, despite their
proximity to Communist China, especially undermine that argument, in addition
to additional examples around the world.
Free States
typically rely more on testing and contact tracing and less drastic restrictions. After relatively authoritarian Singapore was
initially viewed as a model for its efficient response to the pandemic, the
city-state has suffered a dramatic increase in contagion among its neglected
population of migrant workers. I had
already posted how Communist China had initially tried to cover up the
outbreak. The Islamist tyranny of Iran, for political and economic reasons, also
allowed the disease to spread by failing to warn Iranians and postpone certain
political events or elections, which has resulted in the worst outbreak in Asia
outside of East Asia. Indeed, the truth about the extent of the
pandemic in despotic regimes is not likely what they claim, which undermines
the credibility of their boasting. Note:
even without credibility, even the reports on the spread of contagion published
by the Russian Federation,
led by tyrant Vladimir Putin, prove a failure in protecting public health. As I note below, some authoritarian regimes
have ignored the threat entirely.
The delay of an early warning from
Communist China and the lack of a better understanding of the nature of the
virus and the disease it causes hampered the global response to the pandemic,
but should have prompted government officials to be more cautious and to
prepare better. Instead, most foreign
and American States and the United States have been, by various degrees, too
late in issuing guidelines or imposing restrictions to stop the pandemic, which
typically have been implemented in a piecemeal manner, and not adequately enforced,
until eventually the imposition of more restrictive measures become imperative. For example, Italy’s
flight ban from China, which
was Europe’s first, included temperature
checks on arrival, but the disease had already entered the country, unbeknownst
to the authorities. After town and
regional/provincial lockdowns failed to stop Europe’s deadliest outbreak, its
national quarantine was the first of any free State
in history, which was increasingly tightened, but nonetheless too late to stop
the pandemic, although it did considerably slow the spread of the contagion,
especially beyond Northern Italy. By contrast, New
Zealand, a free State,
and Burundi,
a state of limited freedom, were among the few who issued national
shelter-in-place orders before there were any cases in their territory. Their success in minimizing contagion has
been notable. Iceland’s notable program of testing
its entire population is also credited with helping to mitigate the spread of
the virus.
Among American States, Ohio, led by
a Republican Governor, was one of the few to impose adequate statewide
restrictions when there were only a handful of cases of the novel coronavirus
reported within its borders, as counties and municipalities had done elsewhere,
such as in the San Francisco Bay area of California, with relative success in
slowing the contagion. They recognized
that without adequate testing, the contagion had likely already spread to some
multiple of others. By contrast, several
Trumpist Republican Governors were much too late in imposing any restrictions
as the pandemic spread within their States and others still have not imposed
any because of a lack of recognition of the danger that Trump and his
supporters were minimizing and because restrictions were seen as contradicting
Trump’s policy and harmful to the economy and thus to his and their political
fortunes. States led by Democratic or
non-Trumpist center-right Republicans have responded between these extremes,
with corresponding success. Responsibility
for a pandemic from abroad would primarily be federal, but the response of the
United States by the Trump Administration has been so comprehensively
ineffective and even counter-productive, despite the advice of its health
experts, as to deserve further discussion at another time, except in this
context that it also contributed to the differences in state responses, and
also that the federal government was in competition with States, instead of
coordinating with them, in procuring necessary supplies. As a result, the U.S. has no comprehensive
shelter-in-place order or internal travel restrictions and by far the worst
number of cases and deaths in the world.
The political division in America leads Trumpists
to argue that the center-left is revealing itself in its responses to the
pandemic to be as authoritarian as the far-left, while the Trumpist right is proving
to be the guardian of liberty against overly restrictive measures. However, just as there is a contrast in the
policies of the American States in protecting the most basic right to life,
versus the economy (which, ultimately, would be jeopardized by fear of
contagion and the spread of the disease, regardless of public policy) and their
corresponding effectiveness, a brief survey of foreign state responses reveals
an even more sharply different political dynamic in several cases, for restrictiveness
or laxity are each not the province of only one ideology. For example, the far-right Trumpist
xenophobic pro-Russian party in Italy
was among those across the political spectrum increasingly calling for the
populist/center-left ruling national coalition to increase restrictions. Hungary’s illiberal far-right
nationalists have taken the opportunity of the pandemic to suspend
representative government, in favor of autocracy, as I posted about earlier
this month, in a flagrant example of excessive restrictions that go beyond
those necessary for the emergency, unlike those imposed by other governments. Meanwhile, there have been some examples of laxity
on the left, as with Trumpist responses, whether in free States or un-free ones. Liberal Sweden’s ruling democratic socialists,
for example, issued only voluntary guidelines.
Most Swedes avoided crowds, but the congregation of some people at
restaurants and bars and the subsequent increase in the spread of the
contagion, in contrast to other free Scandinavian States, has obligated the
government belatedly to threaten the imposition of restrictions. The World Health Organization has called out
particularly only Marxist Sandanista-led authoritarian Nicaragua and the pro-Russian dictator of Belarus
for doing nothing against the pandemic.
With the exception of some
restrictions in foreign States on press freedom, Hungary’s far-right government is
the only one to impose excessive restrictions on liberty. Restrictions have been imposed by governments
from across the political spectrum to the right degree, but belatedly, by
various degrees. Indeed, laxity has been
more common a problem than excessive restrictiveness.
They key factors in success for
governments in stopping the spread of contagion are not the specific political
ideology of government officials, but whether they take the threat seriously, are
humbly willing to follow the advice of health experts and to prepare accordingly,
place the well-being of citizens above political expedience, even at economic
cost, and provide honest and accurate communication to the public. In other words, it is about competence, not
politics. These practices are less
typical in authoritarian regimes.
Sometimes, certain ideologies can impair an adequate response to the
pandemic in free States,
but success or failure is determined even there more by competence than any particular
ideology.
