Conservative Analysis of Government Responses to the Pandemic: Authoritarianism vs. Liberty in Effectiveness and the Role of Ideology in Restrictiveness and Success

           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.