Democracy in times of coronavirus

In 2018, two political scientists and Harvard University professors, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, published 'How Democracies Died?’ , a book that became a bestseller where the authors pointed out how, since the end of the Cold War, democracies haven't collapsed as much as a result of coups d'état, such as in Chile with Augusto Pinochet, but rather because of their elected leaders, as in the case of Viktor Orbán and his promulgated 'illiberal democracy' in Hungary or Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey. "The democratic retreat today begins at the polls and the electoral path to collapse is dangerously deceitful," Levitsky and Ziblatt point out in one of their pages. The book was acclaimed and provided an insight into the overall situation at the time. The greatest threat to our liberal democracies were the elected tyrannical leaders, they said.

Now, when the greatest danger to humanity in recent decades, the COVID-19 pandemic, threatens to further weaken democracies, it is worth asking whether this will be the necessary spark to light the fuse to reach, as Francis Fukuyama wrote in 1991, the "end of history" of the world as we know it.

A comparison between the responsiveness to the virus of liberal democracies such as European countries and those that have demonstrated political autocracies such as China seems inevitable. The large Asian country seems to have the epidemic under control. Citizens in hundreds of cities have had to install an application on their phones that shares their location with the police. In China, an authoritarian country, the deprivation of rights is the order of the day. Both Beijing and Singapore, an illiberal regime, reacted well to the COVID-19; one, because they had already experienced a similar virus, such as SARS, a few years ago and knew how to react and the protocols to follow; and two, because it is much easier for the authorities to impose obligations and restrictions that deprive citizens of their fundamental freedoms, since the penalties for not complying with these restrictions are much more severe. However, the other face of these autocracies is now being suffered globally.

The fact that China denied the evidence that COVID-19 was spreading with unprecedented speed and silenced all those, doctors, patients and journalists, who were warning of a new virus, made the coronavirus spread all over the world. Reporters Without Borders complained a few weeks ago that the Chinese media could have reported the gravity much earlier "without the control and censorship imposed by the Chinese authorities". So, while there has been much praise for how China contained the virus, there are many more unknowns about how it did so. 

According to Freedom House, since 2006, almost twice as many countries have seen their democracies undermined as they have improved. And the COVID-19 pandemic seems to be the perfect argument for some authoritarian leaders, who, taking advantage of this 'shock' situation, as journalist Naomi Klein would describe it, have lengthened their tentacles of power.

Orbán, Hungary's prime minister, taking the measures that were being imposed in Europe as an example, passed a law that allows the state to remain in alarm indefinitely, allowing it to govern by decree, to cancel elections and to punish the disseminators of information, that is, the journalists that he considers.

Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel ordered the closure of most of the courts, which meant that his own corruption trial was postponed. He has also succeeded in destroying the coalition of his rival Benny Gantz, which could have removed him from power. He also implemented drone control of citizens' mobility and their movements through a mobile application.

Evan Gerstmann, professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University in California, has grouped the restrictions that governments have put in place to curb the pandemic into four categories: surveillance powers, suspension of rights, control over information, and delaying elections. Through the International Center for Law's 'COVID-19 Civic Freedom Tracker', it’s possible to monitor government responses to the pandemic affecting civil liberties and human rights, focusing on laws that have declared a state of emergency. 

Following this database, many countries have suspended fundamental democratic rights such as freedom of assembly or protections against warrantless searches, as in the United States. A large number of countries, such as India, China, Thailand and Egypt, have also made it illegal for the media and journalists to publish information about the coronavirus without prior government authorization, with penalties ranging from blocking the news website to five years in prison. In circumstances such as these, it is true that the dissemination of false information that could alter the control procedure must be controlled, but the punishment of imprisonment or censorship is typical of totalitarian regimes.

The COVID-19 health crisis has a political dimension that may contribute to a threat to democracy. With a frightened electorate and institutions overwhelmed by this crisis, they can encourage authoritarians to take advantage of this situation.

An analysis by The Economist using data from all epidemics since 1960 found that "for any given income level, democracies seem to experience lower mortality rates from epidemic diseases than non-democracies". One of the reasons given for this study is that authoritarian regimes are "ill-suited to issues that require the free flow of information and open dialogue between citizens and rulers". Democracy has been threatened as world leaders took drastic measures to contain the virus, but in exceptional circumstances exceptional measures are taken. Governments can suspend basic rights and freedoms to prevent the spread of a pandemic, which is in the general interest, but only for the period of time strictly necessary to control the virus.

The suspension of elections has been an example of how this pandemic is affecting democratic systems, which, in countries such as Spain or France, can be resolved with some ease, but which in other countries will pose a great challenge. That is why the Council of Europe, an institution based on the defense of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, warns that "free and fair elections are the basis of our democracies, not a ritual that can be suspended and the restrictions will have to be temporary".

Democracies continue even in times of pandemic, and while they are best prepared to deal with this threat, thanks to the increased coordination of their institutions and the exchange of information, the restrictions considered crucial to preventing the spread of the virus challenge the fundamental freedoms of citizens.

In states where restrictions and violations of rights and freedoms were systematic, the emergence of COVID-19 is being used to strengthen control and increase repression. In states where full democracy, mobility limitations, and other deprivations still exist, it can pave the way for dangerous restrictions that could continue after the emergency is over. In this case, the strength and democratic quality of the institutions will be measured, where citizens will have an important role in controlling the movements of political leaders.