COVID-19 and the role of government

Iwould like to share with you my views on the role of government during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. It is hard to generalize about any one country’s response, although many have followed similar patterns of “lockdown” with differing levels of enforcement. One thing is universal, however, and that is that, when such a crisis happens, people turn to governments to act, and they often have high expectations. We have seen the importance of the “big state” model take hold across Europe and in the US, where government intervention in the economy, as well as in industry, has been on an unprecedented level. This is because, when a crisis of such proportion hits, governments must be agile enough to disregard old norms and move quickly to do everything they can to save lives and support infrastructure and the fabric of society. It is a race against the clock and unlike any normal kind of policymaking.

I want to share some of my experience of what it is like for a government in a major crisis, from my own time in office as prime minister of Pakistan.

One of the hardest tests of my career was managing the relief effort following the devastating earthquake in 2005, during which 73,000 people lost their lives and 3 million were left homeless. It was the worst humanitarian disaster in Pakistan’s history.

First, we had to find out what had happened, understand the scale of the problem, and prioritize what needed to be done first. This was hard, as communications were disrupted, roads were blocked and supply lines were cut. The whole machine of government was impacted and had to respond — and quickly. So we galvanized the army, civil society and volunteers to help.

We also realized the government had to be visible on the front line, to show leadership and a bias for action. Every day, for months, my ministers and I would get in helicopters and fly to affected areas, temporary shelters and hospitals. Of course, some of this cannot apply in the fight against COVID-19, with social distancing being one of the main tools. Here is what I think does apply. Firstly, the need for swift, decisive action is paramount. Governments that took decisions quickly to stop the spread of the virus will be praised in the long run. Those that struggled to show leadership are likely to face heavy criticism. Communication is key — it is not enough to just decide on a strategy. Being able to communicate it clearly to the public and to the people on the ground that you rely on to implement it, from local government to police and the border patrol, is important. Technology has been a game-changer in many ways, but it also creates new challenges for governments in such a crisis. Getting your message across is harder when everyone sees what other countries are doing differently, and this can build pressure and criticism of a government that is not pursuing the same strategy.

Governments must be prepared to think outside the box and rescue packages must be put in place. Regulations that are prudent in normal circumstances must be appropriately relaxed to help the national effort.

Most importantly, all governments must realize that we live in a globalized world and a crisis like this needs a global response. Past tensions must be set aside and countries must work together to help each other meet shortfalls in medicine and equipment.

The pandemic must be a wake-up call to all those who think unilateral action is the answer. We must not let this crisis, and the economic fallout from it, usher in a world of more protectionist, inward-looking policy.

As I have long argued, a multipolar world is better than a unipolar world. The existence of new world powers could be a source of strength for all nations. We have spent the past few years concerned about changing power dynamics, as the tectonic plates shifted away from the West and toward Asia, most notably China. While questions will rightly be asked about how the virus started and how China, like other countries, approached the start of the pandemic, we must also look toward the positive cooperation we have seen. When this crisis is over, governments must take a new look at their approach to international affairs. Over the past few years, we have seen the major powers of the world growing further and further apart. Cooperation between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council has been struggling for years. And, in our hyperconnected, globalized world, where, as we have seen, disease spreads so quickly, the necessity for governments to be on the same page is greater than ever.

In conclusion, once the most painful part of the crisis is over, we must ask ourselves how it happened. What are the long-term implications? And what could be done differently? And the key message is: Planning and preparedness are vital. Every country must have the tools in place to handle a crisis before it starts. What we have seen with this pandemic is that disaster management is more global than people realized.

COVID-19 does not recognize borders, which means that, compared with other natural disasters, the dynamics of how governments should respond changes immediately. We have to think regionally, and globally, in looking for solutions. Once the peak of this pandemic is over, we must set up a proactive, empowered disaster relief unit that can provide the adequate equipment and specialists to any country across the world. It would be a global repository of expertise. This body would have expertise in every type of disaster — from pandemics to floods to earthquakes. It should be formed under the auspices of the UN, which has the authority and capacity to help any country around the world, and be able to provide physical help and pre-warning and postdisaster management.

What we are increasingly learning is that no country stands alone in a crisis. You cannot silo yourself forever — global cooperation is key. Disaster management must be a truly global effort.