Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
COVID-19 Being Politicized
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has claimed thousands of lives, with millions of infections being reported daily across the globe. Abbas (7) explains that its socio-economic impact is devastating for many economies. Governments are forced to create radical policies to counter its spread and revive the economies. In the process, political stances and choices have prevailed, which can either mitigate or fuel the health and socioeconomic risks. In this literature review, considerations are made on the relationship between politics and response to COVID-19 pandemic. Attention is given to meaning of the politics of pandemics, COVID-19 and democracy, and the politics of information and analysis. Assessing these topics closely leads to the conclusion that eliminating the high degree of politicization of COVID-19 is critical because it is associated with relevant and evidence-based responses.
Defining the Politics of Pandemics
Pandemics are defined by the prevalence of a disease in a particular population in a way that is above normal. COVID-19 is hence a pandemic, given that it has affected global populations in unprecedented ways (Santiago and Smith 89). Politics incorporate activities that influence politics and actions made by a government. Politics of pandemics can be summarized as the extensive influence of local, national, and international governments and organizations on health outcomes during pandemics (Kapiriri and Ross 37). Several aspects must be factored in when expanding the concept of politicizing pandemics, namely decision-making in research and development, socioeconomic aspects of the distribution of disease, credibility of evidence informing measures taken to deal with the pandemic. It also involves defining the specific individuals or institutions taking responsibilities for making responses.
Remarkably, politics of pandemics is driven and characterized by power and privilege. The most marginalized populations are likely to bear the highest burden of disease when compared to other groups. The decisions made by the government may lack transparency depending on the power struggles in a country. Often, lobby groups opine that a pandemic is inexistent or avoidable when the government takes the right measures (Kapiriri and Ross 37). The private and poorly communicated decisions may also cause power struggles in societies. The historical swine flu was characterized with poor decisions after the pharmaceutical companies, in collaboration with globally-based organizations, introduced unwarranted fear of a global pandemic. The vaccine sales and pilling of anti-viral supplies defined the pandemic’s response henceforth. The same approach has been seen in the COVID-19, era, where products’ sales have increased due to the politics of fear mongering.
Blame and responsibilities tend to define responses to global pandemic. Governments may decide to blame the source of pandemic (Kapiriri and Ross 40). In this case, political discussions have disclosed that the Chinese government is responsible for the spread of COVID-19. Leaders have expressed their disappointment on the responses made from the onset, which implies that the global pandemic would be avoided if China mitigated the risks properly. Such an approach tends to ignore the aspect social determinants of health in every country. It is also worth noting that the blame is subjected to different levels of government with a country. The dysfunctional healthcare system is blamed one or more institutions within the state. Santiago and Smith (93) suggest that it can lead to delayed responses as arguments ensue; contact tracing, effective communication with the public, quarantining, tend to occur at a slow rate.
The politically-based COVID-19 containment measures are inappropriate for many countries. Poor communities in the African content, Asia, and other places are completely burdened with the disease due to poor access to healthcare services (Santiago and Smith 95). Resources needed to diagnose, prevent, and treat the condition are few or inexistent. Inequalities and disparities in income are increasingly being exhibited, with the diseases’ concentrations being in stigmatized, marginalized and disempowered groups in a country. Taking a political has made it difficult for the nations to learn from other pandemics. The responses are more localized and short-term because the resources required are not availed by the international community. The existing vulnerability of hospitals and facilities is a clear demonstration that the national and international policies are inadequate in dealing with world pandemics.
Democracy and COVID-19
The covid-19 pandemic has had an impact on democratic tenets, where personal and civil liberties are constrained. Frey et al. (9) explain that the citizens are given limited choices when it comes to freedom of enterprise, freedom of movement, and freedom of assembly. It creates a conflict between abide by the rules to reduce the cases of infections and allowing citizens to exercise their rights. One of the measures worth considering is lockdown, where people are required to stay within their homes and minimize or completely cease movements within a region. The option has been effective in reducing the spread of infections with a country. In their survey, Blais, Andre et al. (5) studied the relationship between lockdown and political attitudes in Europe. A majority of the respondents supported the decision by the government and stated that they were satisfied with democracy in their countries. Even so, some opined that the restrictions were insensitive to the needs of economically disadvantaged groups in the population. It is indicative that political divisions are likely to occur based on the measures taken by a government to combat the spread of COVID-19.
Stasavage (2) expounds that the responses made depend on whether governments are democratic or autocratic. While the former allows the government to make quick decisions, there is a chance that threats are used to encourage specific actions. Elements of secrecy may also be seen because the decisions are made by a few people. Some of the information allowed to the media may want to depict a government that has the capacity to take the right actions even when the reality is different. In democratic nations, the government is held accountable for its actions. The decentralization of power leads to transparency in dealing with the threat. On the negative side, democracy is characterized with slower decision-making processes. The virus’ spread becomes faster and may cause adverse outcomes in a population.
Yamin and Habibi (3) add that the government reaction to COVID-19 pandemic could fuel discrimination, intolerance, and exclusion. The restrictions placed on movement, for instance, have paved the way for treating travelers with disrespect. The authorities have been concerned with restricting people within specific areas that they have failed to observe the human rights’ processes. It is also clear that arranging for access to living necessities is marked with discrimination, with some groups suffering more than others. The international and national laws seem to overlook that societies are distinguished based on race, caste, classes, ethnicity, and disability among others. The vulnerability to pandemics is therefore different for various groups. For example, the social distancing measure is linked to marginalization and stigmatization of already disadvantaged groups in society. Still, governments have failed to provide transparent and adequate justifications for some of the measures taken to combat the virus. The citizens are required to follow the rules without questioning. Indeed, the control and command decisions are met with opposition and resentment. Responses such as travel advisories and quarantine are more opposed than other measures because of the socioeconomic impact.
The risks to democracy in the sight of a global pandemic can be viewed from election-based cycles and processes. Elections are often viewed as an indicator of democracy in a country and hence, failure to allow the citizens to go through the process due to a pandemic is impactful. Landman and Di Gennaro Splendore (3) investigated this aspect, with the hypothesis that the pandemic poses significant risks to country’s abilities to warrant transparent elections. They also argue that failure to come up with the right measures can lead to limited health protection and electoral integrity. To test and prove this, the authors focus on the experience of twenty-eight countries that have held elections in the year 2020. The results reveal that the spread of the virus affected the electoral cycles namely pre-electoral period, electoral period, and post-electoral period.
Before the pandemic, the processes were designed to offer voters a chance to acquire the necessary information and participate in elections democratically. The election results were also legitimate and trustworthy to a great extent (Landman and Di Gennaro Splendore 5). The presence of virus has affected the processes by discouraging citizens from voting. The low voter turnout is closely related to the election’s legitimacy. Besides this, the formal postponement or cancellation of elections can undermine the rule of law and create uncertainties in the political spheres. In Bolivia, for instance, the government postponed the elections to October 2020 (Landman and Di Gennaro Splendore 5). It has raised questions on the possibility of abuse of power. More so, training and voter registration is affected. The issue characterized elections in Wisconsin and other places in the United States. The governments are expected to take risk management measurements such as mixed system of voting and conducting online training of voters.
The Politics of Information and Analysis
As COVID-19 continues to spread, the political leaders are attempting to control the narrative through misinformation. Some governments seek to deceive the public that the disease has been contained to a certain degree (Maxwell et al. 2). The number of deaths and infections reported on a daily basis are fewer than the reality. Lack of testing equipment and accurate data leaves a room for the manipulation of messages disseminated to the public. It shapes the opinion of society, where the citizens may opine that their leaders are prepared to deal with major issues in a nation. Still, the public may resolve to use conspiracy theories to explain how the virus is spread and possible impact in society. International organizations misrepresented the information and analysis to implicate that some countries have dealt with the pandemic better than others. It births political conflicts and mistrust of governments by the voters.
Information about COVID-19 is politicized and distorted through various ways. First, the access to critical data is restrained in remote areas. Making definitive statements is impossible in under these circumstances, creating a chance for political leaders to spread their preferred version of the story (Maxwell et al. 5). At the same time, leaders who do not want to provide politically-wrong statements make sure that data is missing. Pieces of information, such as the numbers of tests done in a period, may also remain secret to make the analysis difficult. Also, the numbers of people in need can be politicized. The government may provide politically negotiated figures to minimize the extent of the crisis and appeal to the international stakeholders. Donors are given wrong numbers to encourage them to invest in an economy despite the risks involved. Furthermore, the public members are influenced by the loudest voices in the country. Most of them provide the information on social media, which mixes evidence-based data and conspiracy theories. The public may have wrong information about the path of transmission and who is to blame for the virus’ spread. Political leaders rely on these platforms to influence the public to take certain actions for or against a government.
Political interference on reports offered to the public is evident in many countries. Leaders have threatened media groups making report about the pandemic based on accurate analysis. They are forced to deflect criticism by failing to make reports or revising their reports because they need to preserve their position in the political world (Maxwell et al. 4). Issues such as future funding, security, and peace of mind will inform decisions to misinform their audience. Given this, there is a need to ensure that the media is independent to disseminate evidence-based information. Colombo and Checchi (215) explain that this may involve finding leaders who can help counteract political influences and finding analysts who can communicate outside the common consensus. Sharing data in real time, strengthening technical capacities, and clarifying the roles of international agencies are also worth considering.
Abbas (3) adds that the media is responsible for politicizing the pandemic by offering false information, endorsing certain ideologies, and reporting undocumented claims. The result is fear, discrimination, and stigmatization of particular groups in society. The authors analyzed information presented in two different newspapers, namely the New York Times of the United States and Global Times from China. Both of them contained politically-based information to promote the ideologies of their countries. The New York Times focused on the propaganda of the Chinese community party and how it failed to control the outbreak. Global times, on the other hand, stated that the United States government was weak and unable to respond accordingly. It shows that politicizing pandemics is hazardous to nations across the globe.
Conclusion
Literature reveals that avoiding the high degree of COVID-19 politicization is needed to create positive health outcomes. It is related to the influence of local, national, and international governments and organizations on health outcomes during pandemics. Marginalized populations bear the highest burden of disease, given that the government makes decisions without transparency and accountability. The tenets of democracy also seem to suffer when politicians overlook the human rights aspects in creating policies. More so, the politically-instigated information provided to the public is bound to cause fear, stigmatization, and poor responses. Despite the extensive research on the area, there is a still a need to clarify some concepts. Specifically, future studies should focus on the relationship between politicizing pandemics and racial or ethnic conflicts.
Works Cited
Stasavage, David. “Democracy, Autocracy, and Emergency Threats: Lessons for COVID-19 from the Last Thousand Years”. International Organization, (2020): 1-17.
Landman, Todd, and Luca Di Gennaro Splendore. “Pandemic Democracy: Elections and COVID-19”. Journal of Risk Research (2020), 1-7.
Blais, Andre et al. “The Effect of Covid-19 Lockdowns on Political Support: Some Good News for Democracy?” Quantitative Political Economy Working Paper, 2020.1
Frey, Carl, Benedikt Chinchih, and Chen Giorgio Presidente. “Democracy, Culture, and Contagion: Political Regimes and Countries Responsiveness to COVID-19”. Covid Economics 18(2020): 1-20.
Yamin Alicia Ely and Roojin Habibi. “Human Rights and Coronavirus: What’s At Stake for Truth, Trust, and Democracy?” Health and Human Rights Journal, 1(2020): 1-7
Kapiriri, Lydia and Alison Ross. The Politics of Disease Epidemics: A Comparative Analysis of the SRAS, Zika, and Ebola Outbreaks. Global Social Welfare, 7(2020):33-45.
Santiago Anna M and Richard J Smith. “Community Practice, Social Action, and the Politics of Pandemics”. Journal of Community Practice, 28(2020): 89-99.
Maxwell Daniel, Peter Hailey, and Anne Radday. “Famine, the Coronavirus, and the Politics of Information and Analysis”. Feinstein International Center Brief, (2020):1-7
Colombo, Sandra and Fransesco Checchi. “Decision-Making in Humanitarian Crises: Politics, and Not Only Evidence, Is The Problem”. Epidemiologia E Prevenzione, 42(2018): 214-25.
Abbas Ali H . “Politicizing the Pandemic: A Schemata Analysis of Covid-19 News in Two Selected Newspapers”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 2020(1-20).