Rigorous testing is the route back to a free society from coronavirus
This crisis will change our lives for a long time, but we must always aim to return to life without constraints
No one can now be in any doubt: this is the most serious social and economic crisis since the Second World War. If mishandled, the consequences will include millions of lives lost, devastating economic depression, social unrest and political upheaval. There can be few greater tests of decision-making and leadership.
In Britain, as in many countries, the decisions made so far involve a vast increase in the role and power of the state. Never in peacetime has a government taken over so rapidly the financing and direction of so many areas of the economy, and never in history has it intruded so minutely into how individuals live alongside each other.
In a crisis unique in modern times, the drastic measures taken are wholly justified. Without a massive increase in government spending and the supply of credit, the economy would collapse, taking away many livelihoods for years to come. And without firm rules on “social distancing”, the actions of individuals will fall short of what is needed for collective survival.
It has become routine to compare these actions to those taken in wartime, and indeed there is no other parallel. As in war, the need to defend the whole of society justifies state interventions that would otherwise be indefensible. There is a long history of the temporary but necessary aggrandisement of state power. In the 1790s, faced with war and the threat of revolution, Pitt the Younger suspended habeas corpus and gatherings of more than 50 people. In the 1940s, Churchill presided over central direction of business on a vast scale.
As Boris Johnson tightens the squeeze on the habits of our daily lives, he can be reassured that he is acting in this strong – and generally Tory – historical tradition. But at the same time he should not worry that his visible reluctance to take the most restrictive steps comes through to the public. Critics say it is confusing when he shows an understanding of people’s desire to enjoy fresh air and exercise while calling on them to stay apart. But personally I would far rather have a Prime Minister who hates telling the nation how to lead their lives than one who relishes the power to do so.
The PM’S reluctance to preside over infringements of liberty will be a valuable instinct in the future. That is because this global crisis represents an earthquake sufficiently powerful to change the contours of politics, including the risk of clearing the ground for the idea of a more powerful state. Already, Chinese news organisations have been trumpeting the effectiveness of a centralised and authoritarian society in controlling the virus, notwithstanding their system’s initial suppression of knowledge of its origin. China’s ability to take action at home and send assistance abroad is being contrasted with chaos and lack of global leadership in Washington.
While Beijing takes the opportunity to drive home this message, there will be other countries whose leaders will be reluctant to give up the exceptional powers the coronavirus has induced them to acquire. For radical socialists, the proof that the state can take over paying wages, direct vital businesses and create money without restraint will be a justification for decades to come of ideas in which they have always believed.
Those of us who are fundamentally attached to an open, liberal and free society will therefore need to be firm in its defence, keeping three principles in mind.
The first is that a crisis as grave as the one we are now experiencing does indeed justify the exceptional curtailment of some customary liberties. While voluntary collective action is to be preferred, government enforced action is much better than permitting a public health catastrophe. Reluctance to clamp down is a virtue, but in a fast-moving crisis so is speed and decisiveness. Free societies have to safeguard lives at least as effectively as closed ones, immensely aided by public co-operation and consent but ultimately backed by clear authority. This is the principle on which the Government is acting now.
Clearly, it is to be hoped that such severe measures will limit the loss of life, the strain on health services and staff, and also produce a diminution in the spread of the virus. Yet it seems certain that Covid-19 will be present in the world and a danger to every country for longer than lockdowntype measures can be maintained. Decisions will need to be made about the rules we will live under for a sustained period – when the immediate crisis has moderated but the risk of its return is high.
Those decisions should be guided by a second important principle. To paraphrase Jeremy Bentham: “the greatest liberty of the greatest number” is the goal that governments should have in mind. Of course, many universal personal habits, such as handshaking and kissing, might have to change for some time. But as soon as medical research and technology make it possible, restrictions on the economy and society should be eased in favour of a more individual focus on preventing contagion.
This is where large-scale testing comes in. Ministers have spoken of the availability in the near future of tests for the antibodies that will show who has had the virus and enjoys some immunity to it. Those people should then be back at work and free to travel. More widely, rigorous testing for the virus itself, and the ruthless isolating of anyone suffering from it and tracking of all their recent contacts, need to become the norm once the pandemic is on a more manageable scale. This has been the approach of Singapore and South Korea, and it is better than long-term constraints on the whole population.
Finally, it is vital never to lose sight of a third principle: that in the long term, the creativity, innovation, fresh ideas and resilience of a free society will always prove to be the best foundations for the pursuit of health, prosperity and happiness, including a sustainable environment. In the late 1940s, after the trauma of war, ideas of state planning and the continuation of wartime controls were predominant in Britain and much of Europe. By 1951, the winning slogan of a returning Churchill was “Set the People Free”. In these dark days, that is an objective that must always remain our inspiration.