WEBINAR 2: GLOBAL CHALLENGES - Can COVID-19 Save Democracy from Populism?
Tamar HOSTOVSKY BRANDES & Yaniv ROZNAI
11 November 2020
The COVID-19 pandemic emerged in an era in which a large number of countries are encountering challenges to democracy by populist, semi-authoritarian trends and leaders. This collision between the pandemic and populist politics may have led to some troubling consequences as it is claimed that in various countries, the democratic decline accompanied by anti-scientism, religious conservatism, and political polarization have harshly limited countries’ ability to effectively respond to COVID-19. Indeed, recent studies show that populist leaders appear to be undermining an effective response to COVID-19. As one study reports: “There appears to be a striking correlation between countries led by politicians who support populist messages and the poor performance in responding to COVID-19”.
Thus, an interesting question arises: has COVID-19 affected the challenges populism poses to democracy? The most obvious concern is that the pandemic will be used by populist leaders as an excuse to grab power. However, in this post, we sketch out four broad topics, under which COVID-19 may affect existing populist tends in different - and potentially conflicting - manners.
COVID-19 and Internationalism
Populism is generally associated with anti-internationalism. First, populism thrives on a friend/enemy distinction, which is directed, first and foremost, against opponents from within, but also against “outsiders”, or those portrayed as such. In addition, “the people”, envisioned as a single, organic entity, is presented by populist leaders as the only legitimate source of political action. Any constraints on the power of the people, for example, by international law or international institutions, is thus perceived as illegitimate intervention in the state’s sovereignty. As a result, populism is often characterized by an inward-facing public discourse, which allows the creation of an echo-chamber that is dominated by the populist narrative. It is not a coincidence that many populist leaders attack and undermine the legitimacy of international law and international institutions.
It is still early to determine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on internationalism. On the one hand, the immediate management and containment of the pandemic has been treated by most countries as a national problem that is to be addressed domestically. One of the notable consequences of the pandemic has been the closure of national borders, in a manner unpreceded in the era of globalization. Indeed, some of the countries with the most successful results in the battle against COVID-19, for example, in South-East Asia, are also the ones that applied the strictest border-control measures. In addition, the WHO was criticized for failing to address the pandemic swiftly and effectively. As a result of the European Union’s limited competence in health matters, it did not play a significant role in responding to the pandemic. rendered it The European Union has also, arguably, provided an inadequate response. Competition between countries on access to vaccination, once completed, also has the potential of states giving preference to national interests over international cooperation.
On the other hand, the pandemic has provided an opportunity for cooperation between scientists from various countries with respect to the development of treatments and a future vaccine, sharing knowledge and information. Countries have also been negotiating the creation of COVID-19 “green zones”, a development which reflect an understanding that isolation may be a short-term solution, but cannot be a permanent strategy. While the early response to the pandemic has been inward-facing, it remains to be seen whether this will remain true, or whether medium and long-term management of the pandemic will be characterized by more international cooperation. The question how a COVID-19 vaccine, once approved, will be distributed globally is especially important in this regard.
The role of Science and scientists
One of the main characteristics of populism is its anti-elitist, anti-institution rhetoric, and the presentation of the populists’ worldview as the ultimate and only truth. Accordingly, the rise of populism brought with it attack on scientific expertise. This is due to the objection of populism to the liberal elite, receiving its power from its education and professional status. It is also the result of the claim that unelected technocrats do not ‘let the people rule’. Thus, the populist movement is an attempt of the public to take back its authority allegedly hijacked by experts and bureaucrats who limits its powers.
However, the role of science is crucial for democracy. As Collins & Evans note: “Scientific expertise, when it is working properly, and when it is understood properly, makes it more difficult for a government to do just what it wants.” Science and scientific institutional provide checks and balances that limit the power of elected leaders.
In that respect, COVID-19 has restored to scientists their importance, which has been trampled in recent years by populist leaders who contemptuously rejected professionalism as a disguise for elitism and as a means of preserving the hegemony of the old elites. Learning the lessons of the harsh results of not abiding by professional advice, the public might increasingly prefer prudent leaders operating in the light of evidence-based policies rather than populist leaders who act whimsically and impulsively and prefer ‘common-sense’ over science.
The pandemic, however, brought science and scientific facts into the center of public discourse. Of course, even under the horrific conditions of the pandemic populist leaders continue to shame science and its importance and claim that science is mere politics and that COVID-19 is “fake news”. They neglect scientific institutions – or worse, are hostile towards them. It was reported that just three months before the emergence of COVID-19, the Trump administration closed down the USAID-funded PREDICT program, developed to provide early warning of possible pandemics. Whereas President Trump and his administration have silenced scientists and undermined scientific institutions, President-elect Biden, emphasized in his victory speech that his administration’s policy will be based on science and experts.
Science, after all, may still have the upper hand as it is so needed in such times of health crisis. As science is also crucial for democracy, the reinvigorating of science might rescue democracy.
Disinformation and Democracy
Disinformation and fake news have been a major concern in the context of the rise of populism and democratic decline long before the pandemic. In particular, the attention focused on the role of social media outlets in spreading such news in the context of elections, and of the possibility of disinformation contaminating the election process. Many liberal scholars, generally wary of regulation of expression, suggested that in the social-networks era, the premise that the “marketplace of ideas” is likely to lead to revelation of the truth no longer stands. In such an environment, it has been argued, the ability of citizens to make meaningful political decisions is significantly compromised.
These concerns escalated in the context of COVID-19. The fear and uncertainty prompted by the pandemic created a fertile ground for the spread of disinformation and conspiracy theories. An important and worrying phenomenon was the abuse of the pandemic by authoritarian, semi-authoritarian and populist leaders as an excuse to curtail freedom of expression. A recent Freedom House report indicates that the pandemic had a negative effect on freedom of information. Political leaders, the report argues, block independent news sites, arrested individuals on false accusations of spreading fake news, and, in some instances, spread fake news themselves.
While it is clear how the use of the pandemic as a pretext to limit rights and control pubic knowledge and opinion poses a threat to democracy, it should be stressed that the misinformation spread during the pandemic threatens democracy in additional, deeper ways. Fake news regarding the pandemic, in particular, undermining it’s severity, is spread in many countries within circles of government opponents. The concern that limitations imposed by the government are political and not based on public-health considerations is understandable and, as indicated above, at times justified. However, a counter-response that doubts the legitimacy of any measures imposed is concerning both from the perspective of the ability to fight the pandemic, and from the perspective of democracy. A situation in which the information communicated by the government is unreliable, or in which the government takes an active part in spreading fake news is indicative of a democratic decline. However, a situation in which no alternative reliable source of information exists is even more concerning, as it renders exposing and combating the spread of disinformation by the government more difficult.
Friend/Enemy Distinction
Populism, according to one definition, is based on a clear division of the world between "we" and "they": “They" are the elites, the foreigners, the liberals. “We” represent the real, national people. The populist claims that he and only he faithfully represents the real “people”. Populist rhetoric is thus based, to a large extent, on a Schmittian friend-enemy distinction.
As Dana Blander correctly notes, COVID-19 symbolizes a new kind of threat that has no identity, ideology, religion or nationality. It is an enemy, but not one that can be incited against. The corona, in other words, cannot be charged with anti-pluralistic hostility as foreigners, a national minority or a terrorist organization. It is a virus without identity that itself acts indifferently. The threat in this case arises not from the “other” group but from a microorganism.
Here, too, contrasting trends can be identified: while on the one hand, COVID-19 does not distinguish between different ethnic groups or political rivals, it served as a pretext for xenophobia and for blaming minority groups such as Asians, orthodox Jews, and others for spreading the virus. President Trump, for instance, blamed the Chinese, or ‘Kung Flu’ virus for spreading the virus. Hindu nationalists blamed Muslims for India’s COVID-19 crisis. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán blamed foreign migrants student for spreading the virus. And so, emerging evidence suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered anti-Asian and anti-immigrant sentiments, which accords with populist rhetoric concerning the protection of the homogenous people. Even when facing a neutral virus, populist leaders were able to find a “them” to incite against.
Conclusion
COVID-19 presents new and unprecedent challenges to already unsettled liberal democracies. The pandemic strengthens the role of experts and scientists and the importance of ‘true facts’ while being instrumentalized to bolster exclusionary rhetoric and anti-international institutionalism. But as we suggest in this post, it would be incorrect to think that the demise of democracy and the rise of autocracy is the likelihood result. True, the health crisis – as any emergency – has assisted in increasing executive aggrandizement. At the same time, the pandemic proved that populism core features and promises were hollow in many aspects.
Therefore, Petra Guasti, was correct in claiming that COVID-19:
“is an opportunity for democratic decay because states of emergency significantly expand executive power and enable temporary curbs on civil liberties in the name of public health. It is also an opportunity for democratic resilience if four conditions are present—free press critically assessing information by the government; independent courts making sure mitigation measures and restrictions remain within the constitutional framework; effective parliamentary opposition performing government oversight; and active civil society mobilizing to defend democracy”
As we opened our post, populism leadership enabled the spread of COVID-19 and in a somewhat bothersome sequence COVID-19 allowed the deepening of populism. However, and this is the main point, the pandemic also signifies a rare opportunity to pushback against populism and uncover democratic resistance. Populist policies that are based on lies, denial, ignorance of science or truth have their limits when the outcome is the loss of thousands of lives. In the end, people want their loved ones to survive and be healthy.
It is (probably inaccurately) said that in Chinese crisis and opportunity share the same symbol. The COVID-19 crisis may be an opportunity for the renewal of democracy.
Tamar Hostovsky Brandes is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law of Ono Academic College, in Israel. She holds an LL.B from Tel Aviv University and an LL.M and J.S.D from Columbia Law School. Her research focuses on the relationship between constitutional law and international law, and on the interface between constitutional law and political theory. Her latest research examines the notion of solidarity as a constitutional value.
Yaniv Roznai is an Associate Professor at the Harry Radzyner Law School, IDC Herzliya. He holds a PhD and LL.M from the LSE, and LLB and BA degrees in Law and Government from the IDC. He is a Co-Chair of ICON-S-IL, an elected member of the ICON-S Council, and a Co-Founder of the Israeli Association of Legislation. He is the author of Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments - The Limits of Amendment Powers (OUP 2017) and with Prof. Gary Jacobsohn Constitutional Revolution (YUP 2020).