Politicians must strike a delicate balance responding to pandemic
Policy-makers face both dramatic opportunities and risks in successfully responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The opportunities are to demonstrate that government can guarantee the safety and health of its citizens and show politicians have the tools to do so while managing key economic levers. The pandemic also allows government to be relevant when many people are more devoted to Apple, Facebook and Disney than health agencies.
However, there are also great risks for policy-makers during the pandemic.
The first is that governments may lose control of the public discourse. Already the internet is rife with so-called experts and a variety of perspectives, with the mass media focused on finding more and more stories to keep eyeballs on the screen.
Some experts call for enhanced stringent isolation measures, other for more testing, others, including politicians such as Donald Trump, tout unproven remedies.
This pandemic is the first time that the internet is playing a prominent role in how individuals learn about and respond to, a public health emergency. It is easy for Canadians to learn what is happening in other communities and nations. Citizens can form their own views independent of messages broadcast by their governments. In such an environment, the narrative of politicians can be drowned out or panic might ensue such as the hoarding of food and supplies.
A response by politicians has been to further expand government authority. Police have been empowered to visit the homes of people who are required to self-isolate, as well as to fine or arrest those not keeping social distance. Greater social control and surveillance may quickly result in a backlash.
The second risk to politicians is that they have acted solely on the advice of medical professionals. These professionals have a unique perspective on public policy: zero deaths.
Yet, politics is the art of compromise. Complete protection from harm is not the aim of government. If it were then the transport and storage of oil would be outlawed, as would the sale of cigarettes and much else. Politics is accepting that the government cannot prevent all harm to its citizens.
The final risk is that citizens will increasingly worry about their financial well-being. Job losses are mounting and are bound to increase when some of those laid-off due to the temporary business closures are not called back.
The financial and economic fallout of the pandemic will be uneven. Workers in unionized and public sector jobs are protected. Those in the private sector, and especially in precarious and lowpaid employment, will bear the brunt of downsizing and restructuring.
The short term economic policies announced by the federal and provincial governments will do little to help workers facing permanently reduced hours or unemployment, or businesses that face bankruptcy. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit is not a longterm solution.
Politics does not take place in a sterile laboratory, but in the real world of competing priorities and messy trade-offs. Winning the battle against the pandemic is essential, but politicians know that victories have a cost. Making certain that the cost reflects a politically acceptable rate of deaths and illness while preventing an economic crisis is where the hard work now stands.
Alexis Buettgen is the senior research officer at the Canadian Centre on Disability Studies; and an assistant clinical professor (adjunct) in the School of Rehabilitation Science at McMaster University. Thomas Klassen is a professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration at York University.