What Can We Expect From our World Leaders?
In 1941, Ernst Fraenkel published “The Dual State”, analysing the rise of the Nazi government and arguing in Germany two states coexisted: a “normative” one, which was the one managed by laws and that most citizens recognised as standard, and a “prerogative” one, that allowed the government to take drastic and controversial actions in a time of emergency.
Before this article turns into a history lesson, and before you accuse me of comparing our Prime Minister to Hitler, it is probably time for a disclaimer. The reason why I chose to inconvenience Fraenkel is that while most countries have arguably efficient laws, most of them aren’t thought for global pandemics. We are experiencing unprecedented circumstances and the main priority of governments should be to prevent the virus from spreading. But what rights are we ready to give up in order to do that? What kind of planned actions would make us feel safe enough? What degree of trust and compliance can governments expect, and which decisions should be enforceable?
We are already experiencing “prerogative” states, far from the status quo, and we have had to accept governments are making the rules as they go, depending on deaths, results and trial and error laws. But what kind of mistakes can be tolerated? And considering a state of emergency should be limited in time, what time constraints can be applied to prevent power imbalances? What can we expect from world leaders?
First of all, transparency seems to be fundamental. In a world where everyone can access news through hundreds of channels and find live updates, and in a time when every social media is full of info about Coronavirus, there are still contradicting news. Japan seems to be a big case study. Being one of the first countries where the virus spread and due to the high percentage of elderly people, a high number of deaths was expected, but at the end of May reports only show 799 deaths. Comparing this number to other countries, it seems unrealistic. Part of this could be due to the testing (only 0.1%), which would mean most deaths caused by the virus would be undetected. There is still a lot of confusion regarding how they managed to achieve a good result without even introducing lockdown measures. It could be a different mutation of the virus, it could be because of social norms, but experts are afraid the numbers provided could not be a realistic account of the situation. In March, Japan’s PM declared Tokyo 2020 would be held despite the outbreak, and at the end of May most emergency guidelines were lifted in various metropolises. There is definitely still the chance the government could be pushing to open the borders against international guidelines. Tourism in April was down 99.9%, and, early in 2020, the tourism industry was set to become the biggest source of revenue.
Prioritizing the economic survival of a country over its citizens seems to be a constant struggle in many situations. This seems to put a lot of pressure on Gulf countries (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman) and, like Japan, any country whose main source of income is international trade. Aside from the Hunger Games jokes when the pandemic reached the UK, there is a strong push to reopen businesses as usual. The economic aids provided are simply not enough to guarantee survival and many people slipped through the net: sex workers, freelancers, childcare professionals. In the US, considering the 10 industries most likely to be affected by COVID-19, almost 37 million workers will be impacted. As important as avoiding a financial crisis is, governments should consider there is more than physical survival. With rent strikes happening almost everywhere, thousands of people furloughed and millions unemployed, the lack of stability is going to have a deep long-term impact on most countries.
With almost everyone working from home, there has been a big ongoing debate around accessibility. Disabled people are still facing bias and discrimination in a variety of industries, and most are used to requirements that, since the pandemic started, seem way less pressing than expected. Most jobs and schools adapted fairly easily to webinars, zoom conferences, more flexible deadlines, but why now? Why do we find solutions to problems only when they start affecting the majority? Why can’t adjustments be made to allow everyone’s contribution?
And this, of course, leads to an even deeper conversation about equality. In the US Black people are dying at three times the rate of white people and in the UK they are estimated four times more likely to test positive. This is due to a number of different factors: structure of households, access to healthcare, lack of financial stability. With face masks running out even in the hospitals, most Black people aren’t safe wearing anything to replace them (bandanas, scarves, fabric face masks) because of the high risk of police brutality. Because of the obstacles in being eligible for credit and institutionalised racism, they face a higher occupational risk or will struggle to minimize exposure if looking for employment.
In the US, the Navajo nation has the third-highest per-capita infection rate and they have only received the promised resources six weeks after other states and governments. Because of the inadequate funding prior to the pandemic, the Navajo nation and many tribes are struggling with overcrowded structures, lack of healthcare, housing shortage. Because of the lack of proper infrastructures, coronavirus patients have to travel and risk spreading the virus, or bringing it back with them. With the assaults to supermarkets and the low number of groceries stores, most tribes struggle to find food, water and resources and have to travel as far as 150 miles. With 30% of people without electricity, and 40% without running water, social distancing and prevention are almost impossible, and the media coverage is currently non-existent.
In the US, there are about 28 million people without insurance. In March, a woman was charged $34927 for Coronavirus treatment. I’ve mentioned about people struggling to afford to live, but there are millions of people who can’t afford to stay alive. With an already highly problematic access to healthcare, the debate on how to regulate it, should we get to that point, is really close to a dark turn. Many countries have been building new hospitals or converting hotel chains, exhibition centres, schools and offices in order to make more beds available. But should we ever reach a ceiling, should we make decisions about who’s entitled to one of those beds should we now have enough, who makes that decision? And how?
In late March, when Italy, Spain and other countries approached the first peak, disability advocacy groups started raising concerns. Vague guidelines made it look like people more likely to recover from the virus would be prioritised, and in particular disabled and neurodivergent people seemed to be excluded. The ethical implication of these choices paints a scenario much closer to an eugenics experiment than I’d be comfortable describing. With all ICUs full in Italy, most hospitals had started taking into account expected lifespan and quality of life to prioritise ventilators and treatments. Excluding disabled people seemed to be an attempt to legislate choices that were already being made, but where do you draw the line? Considering the high-risk categories, not all disabilities fit in them. Not all disabilities impact life expectancy. At the same time, the number of people surviving after treatment was still incredibly low. So who to prioritize? A 20-year-old disabled person? Or a 90-year-old person with respiratory issues? And if you only have a bed available, would it go to someone with Down syndrome or to an amputee? Would it be better to give the bed to someone who doesn’t have severe symptoms and could possibly get better staying at home, or to someone who is likely to pass away, to make sure they have tried everything possible? Luckily this reality has only survived a few days, but what’s going to happen if we reach a second peak? What if another country reaches a similar situation? Who’s supposed to take these decisions? Is it the government? Is it the hospital? And where healthcare isn’t free, is it going to become a bidding war?
This easily shows that planning long-term is getting more and more difficult. In Italy, for example, once the lockdown has been eased, the new guidelines set questionable priorities for the citizens. While gatherings are still banned, now family (by blood) members can meet, and they are the only ones allowed at funerals as well. With hundreds of death any day, this description of families seems an unnecessary way of policing affection. Most families are far from the “traditional” structure, and this ignores partners, abusive households, fostering arrangements, and any family outside parents and children structure. In a time when everyone is feeling the pressure of being lonely, funerals are being held without friends, without partners, without the people who shaped the dead person’s life. While limiting the number of attendees makes perfect sense to avoid contagion, establishing a similar hierarchy is naive at best.
And this isn’t the first time governments have tried to take advantage of the situation to shape policies and narratives. Lots of controversial political agendas, now that the first page is occupied with death tolls, are being pushed, taking advantage of the lack of coverage and inability to protest. In late April, Liz Truss announced the intent to further limit healthcare access to underage trans people, which, in the current climate and with a three years waitlist at the Gender Identity Clinic, would dramatically increase the number of suicides. In the US, closing the border is being pushed to support Trumps’ anti-immigration campaign, and encouraging racism in a highly paranoid climate is only going to increase the casualties. While it can be tricky to expect honesty from political parties, especially close to elections, there is a fine line between achieving goals and taking action for the wellbeing of the whole community.
And once we see this effort from our governments, once we are provided unfiltered news, once we don’t have to worry about financial stability, once our jobs and cities will be accessible regardless of the pandemic, once we can all equally access opportunities and healthcare, once we know the system is not working against us or pushing their agendas when we’re distracted, once they don’t take personal decisions for us and once they stop telling us to use bleach as a mouthwash (yes, that happened)... then we will cope with staying at home. We will temporarily give up meeting our loved ones. We will adjust to work from home. We will use anything to cover our mouth and nose. We will read the news feeling a bit less scared. We will allow apps to track our movements to avoid contagion.
And during a global pandemic, when we’re starting to forget what normal means, there’s only one thing we expect from our global leaders: more.
Here are some relevant charities and campaigns:
Coronavirus relief for Indigenous people: https://linktr.ee/keinfoshop and https://www.navajowaterproject.org/
Charities that support Black people during the crisis: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=4710
Charities that deal with immigration and refugees in the US: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=4665
LGBT+ charities that support young people: Just like Us, Mermaids, Stonewall, Switchboard, Black Trans Travel Fund (https://devinmichaellowe.com/black-trans-travel-fund)
List of ways to support Hong Kong protesters: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cv0ws4/how_can_you_help_hong_kong_protests_from_abroad/
Written by Ramses Oliva
In addition to working 9-5, Ramses can't seem to stop writing, even if it means scribbling on a notebook overnight. He loves talking about queer identities, diversity and art and when he's not writing - or sleeping - he collects antique books and succulents.
You can find him posting overpriced selfies on Instagram at @queer.discart, venting on twitter at @goldendrella or crocheting on the sofa.