Lockdowns, quarantine, curfews, social distancing: practically every country around the world has issued laws in order to prevent the spread of the Covid-19 virus. From the autocracies of the East to the democracies of the West, individual freedoms everywhere have been sacrificed in the name of the Coronavirus, or Covid-19. This has subsequently lead both scholars and rights organizations to ring the alarm that democracy is in danger: indeed, authoritarian governments (and Republicans in the United States) are using Covid-19 to covertly further their agendas. But is it actually better to take an authoritarian approach, in the matter of life and death, to stop a global pandemic?
The measures enacted by governments to stem the coronavirus do sound straight out of a nightmarish utopian novel. In January, China completely sealed off Wuhan—the epicenter of the virus from the outside world. This set off a wave of restrictive (repressive?) measures as governments everywhere experiment with just how far they can control their people in order to stop the virus and not tank the economy* (*priorities not necessarily in that order). Yet issuing these restrictions has left many leaders in democratic nations wary: take Sweden’s steadfast refusal to shut down businesses, or New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo balking at preventing people from leaving the house because it screams martial law.
Covid-19 starkly presents one of the dilemmas that hinder the promotion of human rights (which was the premise of my Master’s thesis, actually). Do we restrict basic human liberties in order to flatten the curve and stop the virus? Do we restrict the rights to freedom of movement, of religion, of gathering in order to promote every individual’s right to health and safety? Do we take these hard, temporary measures in order to bring an end to this pandemic and restore our word, or do we simply waste time wringing our hands in denial and dysfunction? It comes down to a game of what would you rather: would you rather be able to walk your dog at any time you like, or would you rather half your neighbors die? Are civil liberties and the economy worth more than saving lives?
I believe in democracy. I believe that governments should be 100% accountable to their citizens. The fight against Covid-19 is a “war” of sorts, and in war sacrifices are to be made. Even though it feels surreal, social distancing has been proven to slow down the virus. China may have taken the utmost extreme measures in response to the pandemic, and everything their state press says must be taken with a grain of salt, but China’s strict measures have clearly had a positive effect. Thus, governments should clearly enforce social distancing+ measures so that the world gets through this pandemic as quickly and safely as possible. Are the restrictions being placed on daily life depressing? Absolutely. Do they make certain aspects of life difficult? Of course. But if strict social distancing is the quickest path to getting us through this mess unharmed, then why is the whole world not following suit?
One of the arguments against the wave of government restrictions is that they may stay in place long after the main crisis has passed. One EuroNews article argued that while the big Western democracies like the United States would surely see such measures lifted in a timely fashion, the same cannot be said for certain Eastern European countries such as Hungary, where the extremely conservative government has used Coronavirus as an opportunity to pass anti-immigrant laws. It is easy for me to stress temporary quarantines in the United States, where our system of checks and balances and a strongly democratic populace ensures the “temporariness” of any restrictions passed. The same cannot be guaranteed for people in countries where democracy is wobbly, or in countries that are not democratic at all.
There is a spectrum for Coronavirus restrictions, and it goes without saying that some administrations are taking it and will take it a bit too far. Not surprisingly, the autocratic governments of the Middle East have taken to legislating pandemic life with their usual extreme panache. In addition to locking down the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia has banned all marriages and divorces as of this time. The UAE will fine residents $272 USD for not wearing a face mask in closed spaces and $544 USD for leaving the house for reasons unrelated to work or for necessity. Kuwait has promised three years in jail and a $32,000 USD fine for breaking curfew. Qatar even shamed several citizens who violated their pledges to self-quarantine after returning abroad by publishing their names in the press.
There is no doubt that these are draconian punishments. They are extreme punishments designed to keep society scared—and in check. It will certainly be interesting to see if people are fined and/or jailed. It will be even more interesting to see if these countries manage to quickly flatten the curve and succeed in protecting their citizens. It’s dubious that the aforementioned measures would be kept in place after the crisis has passed, but other measures—especially checkpoints—could potentially be kept as they are more useful to authoritarian regimes for monitoring and controlling citizens. There’s still a fine line between scaring already scared people into submission—which is key to maintaining an authoritarian regime—and enforcing rules that benefit the whole of society.
The right to life, safety and security trumps any other right, because (yes I sound like a simpleton) if we are not alive then we cannot enjoy any of the other rights. The long-term ramifications of imposing restrictions on human rights during these unprecedented times are not clear. Even in democratic nations, we cannot be sure that we will be able to freely move about and celebrate when the worst of it has passed. But if we want the opportunity to be able to live in a world without Coronavirus, it is time to buckle down, listen up and #stayathome.