Politics in the times of a pandemic

Constructive criticism is good. Beyond that, it is time for unity

Never in recent history has India faced a challenge, which is either affecting, or has the potential to affect each state, each economic sector, each organisation, each business, and each individual. The response must take into account this scale of the crisis. And one key precondition for a concerted response is political unity.

India is a democracy. This is its strength. And it also means that on any issue, at any moment, there will be differences between citizens and political formations. On the handling of the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) too, the Opposition is within its rights to ask questions about the government’s initial response, current strategies, and protocols being put in place. In fact, it must do so, to bring forth perspectives that may be missing. The government, too, is duty-bound to remain accountable and explain — to citizens and to the parliamentary Opposition — its plans. This vibrancy of debate is important, especially because it is through consistent feedback and constructive criticism that policy measures can be refined.

But this must not translate into an issue of political contestation. Indian citizens, despite their political and ideological differences and contrasting views about different leaders and issues, are in no mood for petty disputes and point-scoring on Covid-19. The ruling dispensation must refrain from any premature self-congratulatory messages about how it has dealt with the crisis. The Opposition must not pat itself on the back for having warned about the crisis, and make doomsday predictions. Treat this as a national emergency. And just like in an emergency, work together. In Kerala, both the chief minister and the leader of the Opposition together, through a video conference, addressed local bodies about the crisis and measures needed. India’s political class must emulate this example.

Covid-19 is especially life-threatening for the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. That description also fits the European Union (EU), which is sexagenarian and has for over a decade been reeling from one crisis to the next. Institutionally, if not epidemiologically, the EU is more vulnerable to the virus than most nation states.

Since its founding in the 1950s, the European club has by definition been a post-national project, or “supranational” in Brussels civil-servant jargon. Member states pledged to entwine their destinies in mutual solidarity. They even agreed to gradually surrender their national sovereignty for a shared identity in a United States of Europe. That’s the meaning of the “ever closer union” envisioned in the founding treaties.

Back in the real world, intra-european solidarity is strained by the pandemic, and nationalism — in the form of unilateral and uncoordinated decisions taken by member states — is back again. Germany, for example, caused outrage in Austria and Switzerland by stopping shipments of face masks to its neighbours. Several states have export restrictions, usually hidden in impenetrable legalese, on medical equipment from goggles to gloves and ventilators. Italy, in particular, feels let down. When it first tried to invoke an EU mechanism to share medical supplies, no member state helped. Ironically, only China sent equipment.

And, then, there’s the closure of national borders even within the Schengen area of supposedly unobstructed travel. Last week, Poland, the Czech Republic and Denmark were among those slamming their barriers shut. Others followed this week, including Germany, which shut its borders with France, Austria, Luxembourg and Switzerland (a non-eu country that belongs to Schengen). The EU’S normal freedom of movement has been suspended.

The epidemiological case for such border closures is much weaker than for other forms of social distancing, such as cancelling trade fairs or self-quarantining at home. If a virus is circulating in the population on both sides of a border, as this coronavirus clearly is, preventing people from driving across won’t help to contain the spread. Otherwise, Germany might as well “close” the demarcation between Bavaria and Thuringia or its other federal states.

But in a crisis where governments are afraid of looking impotent, border closures have the advantage of looking decisive. That’s why, belatedly, the EU itself is now getting into the game, calling on its members to close the bloc’s external borders for 30 days. Most of them are already shut, of course. The EU’S suggestion is really a plea to member states to save the intra-eu “single market” for goods, services, labour and capital. Ultimately, it’s an attempt to be heard at all.

The clear message is that whenever Europe as a whole is tested, it fails. And then everything — solidarity, allegiance, decision-making — reverts back to nations.

In this sense, Covid-19 is a more extreme