How personal experience of COVID-19 shapes leaders’ views
In the last week, several members of US Vice President Mike Pence’s staff reportedly tested positive for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Around the world, a number of senior leaders, as well as legislators and aides, have contracted the virus, with consequences for governance. Several presidents, prime ministers and other heads of state have had COVID-19 in the last few months, beginning with Prince Albert II of Monaco in March. UK Prime
Minister Boris Johnson also contracted the virus in March. Since then, other top national officials who have had the virus include Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, and US President Donald Trump. All appear to have recovered.
Many more legislators, ministers, governors, mayors and senior aides around the world have had the virus, including a number who have died. When senior leaders or a range of top political officials are sick with COVID-19, it has several impacts. Perhaps the most significant is that these situations can slow policymaking and implementation, which is particularly problematic when governments are struggling to cope with a pandemic and a related economic crisis.
The pandemic has also occasionally created confusion about leadership. When Johnson was hospitalized and very ill in
April, his foreign minister was deputized with the prime minister’s responsibilities. While governing proceeded despite Johnson’s illness, there was some uncertainty over exactly who was responsible for key leadership roles.
Another way to look at how the spread of the virus among political leaders affects governance is to consider how the experience of illness shapes a leader’s perspective on the pandemic. In the UK, Johnson was reluctant to take significant mitigation measures early in the pandemic.
His own harrowing experience with the virus, however, changed his attitude. He
Kerry Boyd Anderson is a writer and political risk consultant with more than 16 years’ experience as a professional analyst of international security issues and Middle East political and business risk. Her previous positions include deputy director for advisory with Oxford Analytica and managing editor of Arms
Control Today. emerged from his hospitalization expressing deep gratitude to the National Health Service and encouraging social distancing, and his government took a more serious approach toward containing the pandemic. In some ways, Johnson’s experience reflects a core dilemma: How to balance taking the virus seriously against the economic damage that mitigation measures can exacerbate. While he attempts to deal with that difficult balancing act, his personal illness at least played a role in leading him to view the pandemic as a real threat.
On the other hand, there are leaders who were inclined to downplay the pandemic before contracting the virus themselves, and who had relatively mild cases. In these situations, the relatively easy personal battle with COVID-19 reinforced the previously-held view that many people are exaggerating the importance of the pandemic. Bolsonaro is the clearest example. Before becoming ill in July, he had aggressively criticized those who took the virus seriously. He famously called it “a little flu.” He then had a relatively mild case, which reinforced his perspective that the virus is not a big deal.
Trump is another, slightly more complex, example. He was briefly hospitalized with COVID-19, but his illness lasted only a few days, partly thanks to the extremely high level of medical care that the US president receives. He emerged from his illness saying he “learned a lot about COVID.” His relatively quick recovery reinforced his view that the pandemic is not a huge threat.
As the pandemic continues, more world leaders could become ill. Leaders who view the virus as a major threat are likely to maintain that view after a personal experience, regardless of whether they suffered much or not. Leaders who downplay the pandemic are also likely to continue that view if their cases are mild, but a severe scare with COVID-19 could lead some politicians to reconsider how they balance pandemic mitigation with economic concerns.