ARTICLE: Democracies throughout the world are facing increasing challenges from their failings, rise of 'populism' and damage to economies wrought by pandemic Covid-19. The trends are towards ill-liberalism, authoritarianism, racism, and narrow nationalism by certain populist leaders.
The phenomenon of populism has preceded COVID-19 pandemic since the last decade. Originally, populism grew in Central and Eastern Europe in 2018. The popularity of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage in the UK were not significant. Matteo Salvini in Italy and Marine Le Pen in France were unequivocal but almost insignificant compared to Jaros?aw Kaczy?ski in Poland and Viktor Orbán in Hungary.
It was a hot topic in world politics from 2017-2019, up until the end of 2019. Various factors coalesced to form this movement which is neither a philosophy nor a doctrine. It has an assortment of ultra-leftist and far-rightist groups with main antecedents traced to the 2008 financial crisis. Anti-elite in disposition, it is against big business, political leaders, intellectuals and company magnates. It holds them responsible for economic gap, poverty and exploitation. But in 2020 things seem to be changing significantly.
The COVID-19 crisis is unprecedented, rapid and growing just as it was unexpected. It is the biggest social, political, and economic challenge the world has faced since the end of WWII. Populism of right and left varieties derives its strength from use of symbols. That slogan shaped and catalyzed the populace when Donald Trump used the slogan: "Make America Great" and Boris Johnson in Britain said: "Take back control: get Brexit done" - slogans which led to their respective victories in national elections. These symbols are wrapped around the nation-state which is still the main actor to galvanize people.
Of course, slogans and narrative are not the only game. With Coronavirus, they are integrating the narrative on nationalism by terming the virus as the 'Chinese virus.' This ties in with President Trump's policy of sealing borders, anti-immigration and anti- China policy. Whether the pandemic crisis will strengthen or weaken the rise of populism is worth considering? In fact, as a Third World major crisis after 9/11 and 2008 financial crisis, it shall have socio-political impacts far and wide. One such area where it might impact is on populism: nearly 12-15 countries in European have populists running the government or as allies. Both so-called liberal and conservative populists are arguing endlessly on opposite sides of the spectrum by defending their respective positions.
Forecasting about the Covid-19 and populism is a bit too early. It depends on how governments cope up with the crisis, the nature of the virus, actions of the world bodies, how soon the virus lasts, and how the manufacture of effective vaccine will change things?
Predictions are always difficult as many variables are at play. Moreover, populism is not a monolithic phenomenon and different regimes and countries have different levels and variants of populism. Yet this has upended economies through lockdowns, widened gap between marginalized groups and power-wielders and accentuated intra-nation tensions. Also debate between neo-liberals and populists is going on. Will the virus impact populism? Or, in other words, will it decline or amplify the trends of populism?
When populists dominate politics they redefine the most influential political symbol of all: the idea of the 'nation'. Ancient and modern Greek history as well as contemporary politics in the US and the UK show that whoever succeeds in devising a political vision expressed through powerful symbols not only win the battle of symbols but the struggle for political legitimacy and voters' trust as well.
Barring a few most of world's autocracies and populist-nationalists have failed to rise to the occasion; in Brazil, President Bolsarno was dismissive initially about the seriousness of the virus but then had to perforce take preventive measures. Yet many of the liberal internationalist leaders have handled the crisis to date with relative authority, efficiency and humanity. Examples of New Zealand, Germany and Australia come to mind.
President Trump's hyper-nationalism is creating problems for him which cast doubts on his re-election in November presidential elections. Countries with major fractures in economic disparities, health and social welfare systems are prone to greater post-Covid socio-economic tensions. Economic disparity, unemployment, lack of social security, mal-governance and corruption are major problems. Populist leaders thrive on these negative tendencies: as a result, anti- immigration laws, protectionism, racism and de-globalization have been hyped up. The media is complicit in becoming more acerbic and chauvinistic.
Another fact is that leaders with sub-nationalist tendencies have acquired authoritarian tendencies. This is happening everywhere, especially in the US, Hungary, India and Pakistan. The democratic order is being weakened with curbs on media. In India, e.g., repression against Kashmiri population is going on after revoking article 370 of the Indian Constitution and by changing the demographic nature of Muslim population.
The potential for de-globalization lurks in the wake of the virus pandemic at least for short and medium terms. For instance, there could be more conflicts over trading systems and securing of supply chains. Whether this will lead to a globalization-compatible diversification or greater nationalization is an open question. President Trump's attempt to 'monopolize' potential vaccine for America first and the distributive issue of vaccine is another cause for concern. As a scholar of politics of pandemic preparedness, Adam Kamradt-Scott, has pointed out, after the H5N1 epidemic, Indonesia had raised two issues: a reform of existing 'virus sharing' systems and the need for equitable access to influenza vaccines.' To argue for the vaccine access, Indonesia had to declare 'viral sovereignty' and ceased to share samples. It is far from clear that these issues will not again come up.
After every global catastrophe or pandemic, there is a call for international goodwill and cooperation, yet after sometime this cooperation loses momentum. The 'beast' of 'morbid nationalism' is difficult to exorcize from the body-politic of nations still wedded in many nations. Neo-realism and populist leaders are ruling the roost and this cooperation, although much desired, is not likely in the immediate future.
To avoid risks of future epidemics, regulatory mechanisms, health cooperation, early warning system are required which, under the circumstances, are easier said than done. While the US has conveniently pulled itself out of the WHO to which it was a major contributor, it has been less enthusiastic in responding to the virus surge exacting a heavy toll on American citizens. Instead, it has started a blame game with China whom it accused for the 'China virus', and China on its part, has counter-blamed the US for not pulling its weight in the virus crisis. This has unleashed a 'war of words' and national politics has been brought in the narrative.
Zoonotic viruses in future can be controlled by regulating wet markets, research on viruses, changes in life style and broader regional and global cooperation. In the short term, lesser trade, aid and investment will take a toll on the economies of developing countries. These may incubate geopolitical crises of all kinds. Further, distributional issues about the virus vaccine may arise over the vaccine once manufactured. In any case, it will take time and many nations are competing for it. The extraordinary measures that the US Federal Reserve recently announced suggests that at least from a financial angle the US has acknowledged that the virus crisis will be for a long haul. By pulling out all stops in trying to shore up its economy, in stark contrast to tepid response to slow down the disease, does not set an edifying example. But the big question will be: who will the financial backstops ultimately benefit if workers are not fired, small businesses not liquidated and many become jobless? A response to the crisis will require massive expansion of social security support in many developing countries.
If there is a serious downturn in economy the hardest hit will be the informal sector and the poor whose fortunes are tied to formal economy. While certain sectors will suffer loss of wages and employment, other sectors - including health care and delivery workers - might be overstretched to risky levels. While the developed world may be able to overcome the after-effects of the current pandemic, the developing nations would acutely suffer the scarcity of public health facilities. So, social support, state capacity- building and public goods provisions are the prime needs.
Politically, populists are more likely to reap future electoral successes in sub-regions that have weaker connections between voters and parties: Central and Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, the Andes, Central America, and Southern Africa. The post-Corona world should mean making good use of institutions, organizations, management and governance, expertise of technocrats/ and scientific knowledge of scientists. Further, there is all the more need for cooperation and collaboration on issues of climate change, terrorism, food shortages, cyber security and drugs as they are staring in the face of humanity.
Admittedly, populists do have some genuine grievances against the failings of existing democratic systems and the post-liberal world order. But they need to do more serious work in rectifying weaknesses of the systemic malaise rather than indulging in slogans, scapegoating and conspiracy theories to win elections and attain power.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2020
Comments
Comments are closed.