Covid-19 is a public health issue that demands state action to, first, ‘flatten the curve' and then make the environment safe for people. And this is where national character assumes significance. At the heart of public policy is the question of the quantum of demands a state can legitimately make on its citizens. This is a question that mainly involves democracies
Contemporary notions of correctness demand that good citizens should shun stereotypes. As a rule, this is unexceptionable. No one but the most hardened bigot would, with a straight face, say and believe that all Chinese look the same. Of course, they don’t, and the suggestion is as preposterous as the old colonial belief in the teeming mass of face of faceless natives.
At the same time, Governments and policymakers inevitably fall back on stereotypes or, to use a less contentious term, generalisations or, if you so prefer, aggregation. The Covid-19 pandemic, for example, has two clear dimensions. First, there is the purely medical or scientific dimension centred on, first, evolving a preventive vaccine and, for the moment, securing forms of treatment that will minimise deaths from this deadly virus. No doubt there are some national characteristics involved in the different schools of medicine favoured by people. In India, for example, the vast range of immunity boosters available in the market range from homeopathic sugar pills to herbal cocktails based on medicinal plants. Then there is yoga and meditation. In the West, apart from immunity boosters containing Vitamin-C and zinc, there is greater emphasis on physical exercise and controlling obesity. The British Government, for example, taking its cue from an overweight Prime Minister who recovered from a very serious bout of Covid-19, has begun a campaign against obesity.
There is, however, another dimension to the management of Covid-19 that involves the state. It is well established that the virus is hugely contagious and is prone to spreading rapidly following contact with an infected person. Consequently, Covid-19 is a public health issue that demands state action to, first, ‘flatten the curve’ and then make the environment safe for people. And this is where national character assumes significance.
At the heart of public policy is the question of the quantum of demands a state can legitimately make on its citizens. This is a question that mainly involves democracies. Authoritarian regimes — and China is the most notable example — are in a position to evolve top-down strategies that can be implemented by force on a passive citizenry. From all accounts — and despite subsequent controversies over the manner in which the virus crossed international borders — the lockdown in Wuhan, where the virus is understood to have originated, was by far the most draconian. When it was put into operation in the initial months of the pandemic, there were concerns over the blackout of news and the so-called violation of people’s fundamental human rights. Regardless of the veracity of these charges and the paucity of credible information, it is now recognised that China has got its act together and no longer features among the world’s hot spots.
China’s approach to tackling Covid-19 was accompanied by people’s adherence to its Government’s guidelines. There was no real public debate on the issue and if people were resentful, they kept their disquiet to themselves. This is unlike other countries where restrictions on normal life has led to a spirited public debate. More to the point, it would seem that Governments have tried to balance between lives and livelihood, with varying degrees of success. In making their decisions, Governments have factored in their understanding of popular endurance and other socio-cultural assumptions.
In a statement to Parliament last week, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson asserted that the Covid-19 infections in the UK were worse than in Italy because Britons are far more ‘freedom loving’ and, therefore, less inclined to follow official instructions. “It is very difficult to ask the British population uniformly to obey guidelines in the way that is necessary.”
This remark prompted the Italian President Sergio Mattarella to retort: “We Italians also love freedom, but we also care about seriousness.”
The snub was timely. Italy has a reputation for being an extremely fun-loving country which is innately uncomfortable with regimentation — as even Mussolini found to his cost when he attempted to make his regime excessively militaristic. Italians also have a deep sense of family and it was said that excessive contact with grandparents was a factor behind the high death rates from Covid-19 in the initial months. However, despite these social complications, the March lockdown in northern Italy was draconian. The UK has never experienced anything like it.
That has less to do with Britons being more freedom loving. The British, as a rule, are said to be terribly law abiding. Had the Government risked temporary inconvenience for the larger good, it is more than likely that the British people would have adhered to the new rules. However, the problems invariably happen when Governments hesitate to take strong measures or put individual responsibility over the sense of common good.
This is what may be happening in the case of the Durga Puja celebrations in West Bengal scheduled for late-October. While the Government has suggested certain steps to ensure social distancing and advised the wearing of masks, these steps have been offset by the Rs 50,000 grants promised to every puja committee. In other words, populist considerations have prevailed over a larger sense of responsibility in an election year. We can say this is the Bengali character, but if the State authority is weak-kneed, why should the innate irresponsibility of a few not set the tone?
National character is a reality but so is the power of a State to act for the public good.
