Back in April I wrote a piece which was trying to explain the current rise of nationalist and popularist governments: https://timboatswain.wixsite.com/website/post/something-big-is-coming
Using the theory of evolutionary psychology, I suggested that a form of tribalism was on the increase, which not only reflected modern humans’ more primitive past but was also an evolutionary reaction to the greater connectedness that has come about through electronic media and the global village. The paradox is that the more open the world becomes the greater the danger is that people will fall back on a prejudiced and limited social identity. The strong leader that invokes his tribe’s superiority over other tribes and offers simple rhetoric, which blames society’s ills on the ‘aliens’ has gained momentum in a world that connects all of us, through a plethora of media, with its disasters and crises.
The present Coronavirus crisis has made me think about how governments in democratic countries convey their messages of prescription and obedience without employing nationalist and popularist totalitarian tactics.
In recent years some democratic governments, like the UK, have been employing the strategy of the ‘nudge’ to persuade their citizens to accept policy but in a time of crisis is this approach really appropriate and what should democratic government’s tactics be in establishing policies to combat an international emergency like the Coronavirus?
The British Government was arguably initially very tentative in policy-making as the crisis of Covid-19 unfolded and gained a grip on the country. There is a sense, reflected in the media, that the UK authorities were slow to react to the magnitude of the pandemic and were caught unprepared - the wisdom of hindsight may cast more light on the validity of this criticism. However, once lockdown became the government’s strategy for reducing the infection rate, instructions were based on a set of slogans Stay at Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives. These have undoubtedly been generally very successful and a series of surveys have confirmed the public support for the imposed restrictions. Of course, there were always those who felt invulnerable and flouted the exhortations but the evidence is clear that the majority of the population understood the importance of social distancing. In fact, it has been argued that these slogans were rather too successful as when the Government planned its ‘roadmap’ to come out of lockdown its next set of instructions, Stay Alert, Control the Virus, Save Lives was too vague and confusing to be easily understood and has just muddied the waters in the minds of the public.
In contrast to most western democracies' approach to the pandemic, the Communist Government of China, where the disease originated and where public opinion is suppressed, imposed draconian measures, so we saw news videos showing citizens suspected of having contracted Covid-19 being violently dragged off the street into ambulances. Caught up in its own ideology of infallibility there are well-based allegations that the Chinese Government withheld evidence of the outbreak of Coronavirus, including the silencing of medical whistleblowers. The scale, timing and origin of the outbreak of Covid-19 is still shrouded in uncertainties.
In the USA the popularist President Trump, not for the first time, sent out a series of contradictory messages. Eager to downplay the level of the pandemic, no doubt as some critics have alleged, to avoid denting his re-election message that he has made America Great Again, there has been no clear federal message and each state has been forced to adopt its own singular measures, resulting in a high infection rate and a subsequent level of mortalities. At the same time, using the popularist tactic of attacking the 'other' I mentioned above, he has attempted to deflect criticism of his own administration by concentrating on the blame-game with his accusations against China as the originator of the virus. There may be validity in his some of his charges against the Chinese Government but the timing and focus on the allegations should not distract Americans from the vacuum his own lack of coherent policy created.
What then is the right approach to deal with crises on the scale of Coronavirus? There are some inevitable truisms but they are not always adopted by politicians as they fear to appear vulnerable which could result in a loss of power. However, to gain popular support among the population it is important to have trust. To achieve trust there needs to be openness, even if that admits on occasion as to not ‘having the immediate answer’. There also needs to be a level of participation so that the public can have some ownership of the direction of policies. Coherence in determining policies will also lead to confidence in the administration.
These are democratic practices which need to be paramount in the ethical thinking of our politicians who serve their citizens. If democracy is to succeed in a time of crisis, such as Coronavirus, the qualities I have outlined are crucial for the social contract between the government and the people so that democratic ideals such as autonomy, dignity and justice are maintained.
Comments