The coronavirus struck the world like a whirlwind- the economy came to a standstill, millions lost their jobs, and the death toll was continually burgeoning. To cope up with this catastrophe was not a facile task for the governments around the globe. In the ongoing debate on which one out of authoritarian governments and democratic governments was able to manage the pandemic better, I feel that there are many latent factors- the faith of the citizens in the government, the presence of economic disparities within the nation among many others- contributing to our understanding of the situation.
As the fog of chaos lifted we realized that the pandemic not merely affected the health of the people but is also the reason for many economic blunders. Unforeseen challenges arose and addressing those challenges became the business of the governments. While many countries were able to combat the pandemic successfully in the first half of 2020, others are still struggling to find their way to deal with it.
In countries with Authoritarian governments, people do not have a free will to express their opinions, which makes it easier for the government to take any resolute judgments. For instance, the use of location tracing apps to reduce the spread of the virus was victorious in authoritarian countries, which is one of the reasons why they dealt with the pandemic better. When the same was implemented by democracies, like the Aarogya Setu app in India, the public objected that their privacy was at stake. Therefore, in my opinion, when the situation is as critical, as the COVID-19 pandemic, public opinion might be deleterious rather than fruitful. It may lead to delayed judgments, unclarity of thoughts that are not well suited given the severity of the situation.
The USA, the most powerful nation on the planet, and also a democracy, was also humbled by the COVID-19 pandemic. Research from the most distinguished doctors in the world proves that wearing a mask reduces the risk of spreading the virus. However, for a very long period, wearing a mask was voluntary instead of obligatory in the states. The government of The United States did not deal with the pandemic aggressively. Lack of economic relief to the unemployed, no proper implementation of lockdowns, and many other impetuous decisions led the nation to fend for itself. A failure of political leadership at all levels; a distrust of scientists, the media and expertise in general; and deeply ingrained cultural attitudes about individuality and the values placed on life have all combined to result in a horrifically inadequate pandemic response compared to what are traditionally considered the U.S.’s peer nations (citation).
As opposed to the USA, many democracies like New Zealand, South Korea, triumphantly eradicated the pandemic from the very beginning.
“A stitch in time saves nine” was the ideology adopted by the government of New Zealand. Quarantining everyone who came from China for 14 days, banning flights from Iran, placing stipulations on anyone flying back from Italy and South Korea, and anyone who is showing symptoms is some of the measures that the New Zealand government was ready to fight the virus from the very start. Taking such stringent stratagems even when the cases were just in thousands, helped New Zealanders to eliminate the virus at its preliminary stage. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said these were the strictest regulations in the world, for which she would “make no apologies”(citation). However, I believe that it was not only the government but also the compliance of the people that led to its success.
While the world was still grappling to constrain the virus, China despite being the epicenter of the pandemic was one of the first countries which were able to get rid of the virus. Despite being a densely populated nation China was able to do rapid testing, shut down schools, banned public transport, and shutdown workplaces which helped the country mettle with the virus in a very small span.
None of this would have been possible if the government wouldn’t have been poignant with its policies. If like democracies, the citizens of China would have had the liberty to express their thoughts, the eradication of the virus might not have been as smooth as it was.
Nevertheless, the same does not hold for all authoritarian governments, some countries like North Korea, who for a very long period was in denial about the virus, or Russia who’s prime minister did not take measures until the eleventh-hour and as a result, had to understate the total number of deaths in the country.
In a nutshell, Authoritarian governments were able to tackle the pandemic more placidly and efficiently than the democracies. Yet in some democracies, the citizens understood the austerity of the situation and complied with the government’s measures without scruples. Therefore, government type is only one part of the bigger picture. Government type along with the cooperation of people go hand in hand. No government can be successful without the support of its people, which I feel was easier to be achieved in an authoritarian government than it was in a democracy.