Mistrust back as a potent political force
Things will never be the same. This is a common refrain these days. Faced with the massive impact of COVID-19 on our lives, the economy, and our relationship with government, it is hard to think that our societies will go back to “normal.” The pandemic will eventually pass. And when it does, there are reasons to hope that doubts about expertise and the role of government, as well as the conditions that breed economic inequality, might be alleviated. We are seeing scientists take centre stage and policy being crafted based on the best possible evidence at hand. Trust in government and political leaders is increasing in Canada and there’s a growing sense of common cause, with well- paid professionals appreciating how much their lives depend on the poorly paid and precariously employed. Surely this will lead to a renewed embrace of expert advice, a positive role for government, and a commitment to reduce inequality when this is all over.
But as pivotal as the moment seems, we should not forget that it comes at a time when trust in governments, expertise, and the economic system has been declining. Rather than changing everything, the COVID-19 pandemic might amplify this longer standing, less obvious crisis and the discords that have fuelled it.
The respect shown toward public health officials and evidence- based policies at the moment is heartening. But it is not hard to see mistrust remerging as a potent political force. Questions about when travelling restrictions were imposed and based on what evidence are percolating. Debates about rates of infection in certain age groups or about whether asymptomatic people should be wearing masks are leading many to doubt what they are being told and to ask whether authorities are engaging in “noble lying.” Many commentators have noticed that official policies were reversed in a matter of days and weeks, leading to doubts about the quality of the evidence that informed government positions.
The reality, of course, is that policy- makers always act based on imperfect information, particularly in rapidly evolving crises. Similarly, expertise is not omnipotence and there is an understandable hesitance to act contrary to what others in professional networks and international institutions are recommending. During a crisis, the need to show unity may even trump the careful consideration of alternative approaches. This is one way in which the battle against COVID- 19 does resemble a war: those who are waging it are caught in a fog, working with the best information they have and the strategies they judge most appropriate, even if their approach ends up being faulty.
Under the circumstances and the muddling through they require, no government will find itself above criticism. While solidarity and support are widespread today, they might give way to scrutiny and resentment, as citizens demand to know why states were not better prepared or hesitant to act sooner.
But this could take a deeper form. The connection between populist politics and distrust in expertise and government is evident. Populist movements that have gained prominence across the world in the past decade have fed off the sense of disconnect people feel between their interests and values and those that are championed by governing elites and experts. Those who are already skeptical of technocratic government and officially sanctioned expertise could see their views reinforced as leaders do their best to work with the information and evidence they have available to them. Although many are applauding the return of “big government” and the central role of experts in responding to the crisis, in the long run responses to COVID-19 may feed populist fears. Populists may see this as another example of “elites” making decisions — and mistakes — far removed from everyday people and their right to make their own decisions.
Perhaps the social solidarity the pandemic is fostering will keep the scrutiny and resentment at bay. But we should remember that these are early days and that, as is quickly becoming apparent, not all are living the crisis in the same way.
Long- standing divides may reappear once the full economic impact of the crisis, and the steps that are needed to pay for the emergency payments that were enacted, become evident. The disproportionate burdens and risks the pandemic will place on the least privileged is increasingly being recognized. Yesterday’s job precarity has already translated into deep economic uncertainty for significant segments of the population under COVID-19. New government programs will help buffer economic hardships for now, but it will likely take years for many to recover what they have lost or will lose. As importantly, many will be dismayed if governments rush to re-establish the previous economic order. Those who already felt left behind before the pandemic risk feeling once again overlooked if government and business leaders strive to return to a status quo ante that rebuilds the economic structures many felt marginalized them or discredited their contribution to society.
Those who benefited from the world as it was, in turn, may feel they need to defend what they once had. Loss aversion may be powerful force in the coming years, and it could exacerbate the ideological split over income inequality, taxes, deficits/debt, and the overall role of the government in the economy and society.
As noted, the fight against COVID- 19 has been likened to a war. So far, Canadians appear to be “rallying around the flag,” doing what it takes to flatten the curve and support front- line workers and those who have lost their livelihoods. But it may be too optimistic to hope that the pandemic will “change everything” when it comes to attitudes about government and expertise, and the political factionalism that has marked Western democracies recently. From our admittedly pessimistic perspective, the pandemic may worsen the deeper crisis our political and economic institutions were already facing.
WILL LIKELY TAKE YEARS FOR MANY TO RECOVER WHAT THEY HAVE LOST.