Repression in the time of Covid-19
How the pandemic facilitates the dismantling of democratic institutions, freedoms and the law.
Photo by Morning Brew on Unsplash
The world has changed over the last six months. Processes and rights once considered sacred have been suspended in the face of the “unprecedented” crisis period. This, as most politicians have reasoned, is cause enough for an “unprecedented” response - one that has threatened to upend democratic institutions in many countries, or further dismantle those already on the brink of collapse.
The speed and severity of Covid-19 meant that there was no time for that genuine deliberation which characterises democracy; responses had to be decisive and immediate. This has resulted in changes allegedly meant to guarantee the stability and safety of the population, but ones that could also be utilised to solidify political bases, repress criticism and bypass the rule of law and fundamental rights.
Attempts to block opposition movements and increase the legislative capabilities of those in power have been visible all over the world. At least 10 national parliamentary and two presidential elections, six nationwide referendums and thousands of local elections, originally due to take place between January and June, have been postponed due to the pandemic - many indefinitely.
At least 84 countries have declared a state of emergency, which have led, in some cases, to a suspension of fundamental rights and to abuse of power. In Hungary, the leader of the Fidesz party, Viktor Orbán, has been allowed to rule by decree under the Draft Law on Protecting Against Coronavirus - a piece of legislation that originally passed with no sunset clause, leading to concerns and criticism from democracy watchdogs.
Prime Minister Orbán has utilised this decree to pass highly controversial laws, such as prohibiting transgender individuals to legally change their gender on their documents. This puts them at great risk of discrimination and harassment in daily life and many have said that it clearly has no relation to the current crisis. Although parliament has voted to now end these “emergency powers,” critics worry that this is only a front to bring in new legislation that will consolidate them in a legal setting rather than actually restrict them. The Karoly Eötvös Institute’s analysis of this concluded that this piece of legislation had no intention of the legal order from before Covid-19, “but rather creates a legal basis for the use of newer extraordinary and unlimited government powers.”
In Poland and Belarus too, the democratic process is being undermined - the Polish ruling Law and Justice Party advocated for a hybrid voting model in May, which they insisted will keep voters and the election safe. This form naturally favoured incumbent President Duda, a close ally of the populist party, who thereby kept the advantage in the elections. President Duda was voted in in mid-July.
Belarus has similarly skirted due diligence in its recent election, with the European Union and many other countries condemning the election, which brought President Lukashenko another victory, as undemocratic. EU officials have recently agreed to prepare sanctions on the Belarusian officials responsible for the "falsification” of votes.
Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, the opposition candidate for Belarus, said that she believed that she had the people’s confidence, and that this was not what the population had voted for. The Central Election Commission says that Lukashenko won 80.1 per cent of the vote, whereas Tikhanovskaya only won 10.1 per cent; however, she insists that where votes were properly counted, her support garnered her 60 to 70 per cent of the vote. There were widespread fears about falsifications, as no independent observers were present in most polling stations and numerous irregularities documented.
Resulting from many leaders? gaining extraordinary powers in this period, the judicial system and due legal processes are also coming under fire. We can take the example of Orbán’s government, and see similar derailments of the due process in other countries, such as Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has suspended the legal courts while facing charges of corruption for fraud, bribery and breach of trust. Despite his indictment, he has been allowed to form a coalition government with his main rival, Benny Gantz, and would be in power for 18 more months before handing the reins over to him. Many groups, including opposition parties and democracy watchdogs, have petitioned Israel’s highest court to nullify the deal and ban him from leadership, citing the legal process he is currently undergoing.
Fundamental freedoms and rights, previously more protected by due processes, are being denied partially as a result of these legal breakdowns. For instance, the rights of protest and assembly. Obviously the virus’ ability to spread very quickly makes it hard to safely and effectively demonstrate, but many have criticised that this fact is being used by governments to quell unrest. On March 15, a state of emergency was implemented in Kazakhstan, banning all mass gatherings, including protests. Activists have argued that the subsequent passing of a bill during this period, restricting freedom of assembly, made it hard for the public to mobilise and lacked transparency. The government is now able to propose alternate locations, dates, times, and can even reject events outright.
In more extreme circumstances, this fundamental right to protest has been visibly suppressed in both Lebanon and Belarus, to silence populations taking a stand against authoritarianism, corruption and censorship. In the city of Beirut, the explosion on August 4 has rekindled mass protests, which started in October of last year, against current President Aoun and his regime. The population is blaming the government for the corruption that led to circa 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate being stored unsafely at the Beirut port for almost seven years, and for the hundreds of deaths that came from the accidental ignition of this chemical.
Government opponents have argued that the cabinet’s use of “general mobilisation,” instituted as a result of Covid-19 in March, has been exploited to tighten the grip on political opposition in Lebanon. It has come in the form of curfews, the deployment of security forces, and has led to the state monitoring media outlets. In several anti-government rallies after the explosion it was reported that excessive force was used; tear gas, sticks and rubber bullets were all used to disperse protesters, while others were dragged, assaulted, beaten and arrested.
In Belarus, there are similar violations - rallies triggered by what many saw as unsubstantiated election results, declaring President Lukashenko’s victory, were met by state forces that perpetrated violence upon protestors, journalists and even accidental passers-by. The night after the election, over 3,000 arrests were made in Minsk after violent clashes, with a further 3,700 on later nights. Police not only fired tear gas, rubber bullets and stun grenades to repress protestors, but also brutalised those detained, with numerous people beaten and forced to stay in overcrowded prisons.
This has not slowed the progress of opposition demonstrations, however, as women took charge and marched down the main thoroughfare in Minsk, Independence Avenue, dressed in white. Drivers honked in solidarity, with hundreds of thousands more eventually joining the protests.
The freedom of speech and press, drawn out and hard-won in many countries, are also at risk. In the Philippines, President Duterte obtained emergency powers to manage the country under Covid-19; although these only extend to the medical and transport sectors, dissidents could be targeted under a clause allowing for the penalisation of those spreading “fake news.”
In Turkey, individuals were detained for spreading “provocative news,” and journalists criticising or questioning the government’s response were jailed. Reporters in Madagascar who criticised the so-called “miracle cure” to Covid-19 that the state endorsed were also targeted.
Within Belarus and Beirut, journalistic freedom is the one of the few vessels for sharing the brutality and revolutionary sentiments that both countries are currently experiencing. In Belarus, a BBC crew was attacked while attempting to film the protests, and several journalists, such as Nikita Telizhenko of the Russian Znak.com news website, were detained for days, later publishing an account of the horrors of Belarusian detention centres.
Moreover, an internet blackout was instituted at the beginning of the protests, blocking many from asking for outside aid and posting about the situation on social media sites. This has not, however, stopped journalists from doing their jobs. Recently, workers from state-owned media outlets have sought answers from managers and local officials about election irregularities and treatment of protesters, with some joining the protests and striking. On August 17, state TV staff walked out, joining the protests against Mr Lukashenko's re-election, following several high-profile resignations.
In Beirut, TV crews were similarly attacked and prevented from filming by state forces, and through “general mobilisation,” journalists have been suppressed, threatened and assaulted, including the Editor-in-Chief of the October 17 newspaper, who was hospitalised, and journalist Mohammed Zbeeb, who was attacked by the bodyguards of former Minister of State Marwan Kheireddine.
Moreover, misinformation about the virus, its symptoms and medication is spreading rapidly; partly because the virus is hard for the average civilian to understand, and scientific texts about it are hard to read. In some states like Turkey, some propaganda claimed that populations were immune from the virus, while media in the West downplayed it, attempting to pin it on political or foreign opponents.
In Eastern Europe and Asia, in contrast, the threat of the virus was exaggerated through fear-mongering. The EU’s External Action Service found that Russia had started a “significant disinformation campaign” against the West to make the impacts of Covid-19 seem more severe, and generate panic amongst the population. This is also visible in China, where Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said that the “US army brought the epidemic to Wuhan,” despite there being no evidence to support this statement. WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said: “Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous.”
Finally, there are also fears that digital freedoms are being infringed on during this pandemic. Google recently released Covid-19 movement data from location history-enabled users, which allows governments to better target locations where there is a greater probability that users will come into close contact with others. While it is without a doubt somewhat paranoia-inducing, the company has kept their reports at a high level and removed all personally identifiable data, thereby ruling out micro-level contact tracing. The government of South Korea has begun to track the movements of individuals who have tested positive, displaying their location data on a publicly accessible website without names, with many other Asian governments, like Singapore, following South Korea’s lead.
China, which has instituted a new health code system, has also begun assigning individuals traffic light colours — green, yellow, or red — based on their risk level of carrying the virus. In almost all public places, like the subway, markets, and workplaces, a green code must be shown to gain entry. Those who are assigned yellow must self-quarantine, while those who receive red have their location sent to the police immediately. But the workings of the app are still unknown to civilians. Chinese FinTech company Ant Financial developed the app with the support from the local government and police, leading to an unprecedented amount of collaboration with the ruling party. Although Ant Financial says that all those involved with the data adhere to security and privacy regulation, users scan data and their location is sent to servers controlled by the central government. This could lead to highly specific data linked to individual citizens, which in turn might be exploited, creating a Digital Big Brother figure.
Democracy is a delicate process, a delicate balance to observe. It combines the legal and idealistic processes of a country, and tries to provide space for open discussion and debate. In times of crisis, this often leads to having to make an impossible compromise - the due diligence in exchange for lives and livelihoods. On April 13, the Washington Post wrote that "as leaders seize powers to fight coronavirus, fear grows for democracy.” The seizure of power by authorities during this pandemic was inevitable; it is the exploitation of this power grab that now threatens to overwhelm the democratic processes of countries all over the world. In aspects such as legislation, to extend or acquire extraordinary powers of control, the suppression of opposition, and in the repression of fundamental rights through the subversion of the law; it is visible everywhere.
We must still, however, bear in mind that there are always those fighting to retain this fragile balance. In the Philippines, people have turned to crowdsourcing for the bail payments of arrested protesters. In Belarus, journalists are still risking their lives to report the truth about rallies, while demonstrators defy the government’s repression and demand justice. There are still people everywhere willing to grapple with power abuses, corruption, and the rise in authoritarianism.