The length of the lockdown has ushered a phase of soul-searching. In various sectors of society, many seek to understand how our lives and the world around us could change when this is all over. Some just want to go back to where we were. Others argue that where we were is, after all, not such a right place to be.
While the COVID-19 pandemic is a global experience that practically no one living today has witnessed before, it is certainly not the worst disaster in history. Historian Margaret Macmillan illustrates how global crises of the past have often led to substantial changes in global socio-economic dynamics.
These changes were not always motivated by a desire to ensure that those who suffer most in a crisis become the centre of attention of planned reforms. After the Black Death pandemic in the 14th century, landowners were forced to pay their peasants better and allow them more freedom because there was such a shortage of labour. After World War II, the US introduced the Marshall Plan not so much out of brotherly love for Europe but because it feared the spread of communism.
The soul-searching many are engaging in today must start by acknowledging what we have done wrong in the past several decades. There are different interpretations, for instance of what Margaret Thatcher meant when in 1987 she said: “There is no such thing as society” she encapsulated a theme that soon prevailed in political thinking. The libertarian movement in the Western democracies that was at its peak in the 1980s demonised the role of government in the economy and society.
This thinking led to a slimming down of the welfare state, the privatisation of essential public services like health and education, reduction of taxes, deregulation of various services including banking, and soft-touch regulation in practically every sector.
Every death means a loss of a human being that had a family and friends
Today, populist political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic still speak about the risks of ‘big government’ and the ‘deep state’. They find popular support because traditional politicians have generally failed to bring about the reforms needed to help ordinary people deal with the effects of globalisation.
While we enjoy the benefits of cheap electronics and eat tropical fruit at all times of the year, we often forget the consequences of lack of sufficient investment in public health, climate, the environment and even human rights. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about a seismic change in the way many perceive the role of good government in society. The cult of maximising private profits has left many destitute.
Businesses for decades have been ridiculing the concept of the nanny state and pushed for more liberalisation, deregulation, lower taxation, and more laissez-faire economic policies. As Macmillan rightly argues, today businesses that have been severely affected by the pandemic “far from resisting sudden government intrusion, seem to be longing for the nanny to tell them everything will be all right by teatime”.
Unless today’s society, in its entirety, acknowledges the imbalance that has been created between private profits and public shortages, we can never come up with a sustainable recovery plan after the current crisis. This acknowledgement will not come quickly.
History teaches us that major changes in socio-economic models only came about when we were lucky to have the right political leaders to steer us out of troubled waters. Today’s political leaders try to emulate Churchill, who saved the free world from the tyranny of dictatorship more than seven decades ago. But does anyone see the same calibre of leaders today that could make tomorrow’s future better, especially for those who have been worst affected by this pandemic?
Among the worst-hit by this pandemic are young people and the elderly. The politically- engineered narrative that informs us about the sad news of deaths of older people infected with coronavirus is revealing. The death of an eight-year-old is subliminally projected as inevitable since he or she was suffering from ‘underlying health conditions’. We get used to define people by their health condition. We forget that every death means a loss of a human being that had a family and friends.
Why should we have to tolerate a situation where our professional medical staff have to take life and death decision on who to treat because of insufficient resources to enable them to do their work effectively?
Ultimately the quality of our political leaders will determine whether this and future generations will prosper in the decades to come.