Political Culture and Lockdown Policy
Photo by Kaitlyn Baker on Unsplash
By Noah Williams
Europe’s second wave of Covid-19 has already caused a second lockdown in some countries. With cases on the rise, European governments no doubt feel pressure to do something before a catastrophic outbreak, and will likely follow suit in locking down. Varying degrees of lockdown have been the norm in much of the world since March. However, lockdowns have costs and benefits. It seems intuitive that limiting contact between people will slow the spread of an infectious disease, and there is simulation evidence to support the existing interventions as effective. In terms of cost, the economic impact of unemployment and bottlenecked industry are also intuitive, but the cost of lockdown are psychological as well, often referred to as Pandemic Fatigue. Liberal democracies, like most European countries and the United States, have a cultural aversion to heavy handed government policy when it encroaches on the rights of citizens. Extended lockdowns—as currently envisioned—and liberal democracy are not natural companions.
The friction between the culture and policy is evident to many in the western world where we hear frequently of anti-mask protests, courts ruling against the legality of lockdown measures, and even a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan over her choice in policy. In contrast, lockdowns in China were, by some accounts, much more severe and effective. Unlike liberal democracies however, the CCP has the legal authority to enforce lockdowns to a degree which would be considered unacceptable in the west and there are no constitutional rights which cannot be arbitrarily suspended by the government. Though there is no doubt resistance and dissatisfaction with the state response to Covid-19, the single party state leaves little room for dissidents to challenge the decisions of the government. Western nations cannot imitate the CCP in lockdown enforcement.
Instead, liberal democracies rely on coercion by other means to communicate the necessity of lockdowns and create incentives to comply. In these political environments, the effectiveness of lockdown wanes over time and resistance to lockdown grows proportionally. The HMP Governance Lab produced graphs comparing policy stringency to Google mobility data which show how people move under lockdown.
In the UK, the stringency of policy measures remains mostly static, while mobility trends towards a pre-covid baseline.
The Italian picture is different as their policy started as more stringent than the UK and eventually fell off. Mobility, however, follows a similar trend though the Italians seem to rebound from strict lockdowns toward baseline faster than the UK did with more consistent policy.
These two limited case examples illustrate how initial compliance is strong but temporary. Though there are many possible explanations as to this change over time, the change is permitted because of the political culture. In the United States, we’re familiar with exceptions made for voting and protest during lockdown. American’s have an especially difficult time navigating civil disputes when the rights of one are being weighed against another. When thinking specifically of the right to political action—such as voting or protest—it is clear how government mandated lockdowns run counter the culture of liberal democracies. To deny citizens the right to partake in these activities would be beyond the constitutional limits of the government, at least in “normal” times.
When considering future lockdowns in liberal democracies, these nuances are impossible to navigate without sacrifice. The pandemic has presented policymakers and individual citizens with options which are all costly on different axes. Preserving life and preserving a free society are not incommensurate, we have a duty to preserve both, but neither can be had without cost to the other. Awareness of who is being asked to sacrifice their own well-being for the good of the many is important to reacting proportionally while preserving the political culture necessary for democratic government.