Corona: Short-term decisions vs long-held beliefs
Covid 19 asks some difficult questions. Do we believe in individualism (where ultimately the rights of the individual are paramount) or collectivism (where individuals submit to the group)? Do we believe in centralisation (where power is concentrated and decisions flow downwards) or de-centralisation (where power is devolved and decisions flow upwards)? Might the west tend to individualism/de-centralisation (selfies, atheism, free elections) whilst the east tends to collectivism/centralisation (families, religion, state-control)?
Since the 18th Century, the western political tradition of Locke, Mills and Bentham has informed our now intuitive understanding that individuals should be free to do as they please within the law so long as they don’t harm others. Never before did we conceive of this being extended to deny the individual’s freedom of movement on the mere possibility that I may be ill but without my knowledge (asymptomatic) which in turn could cause others to become ill. The links between cause and effect were so indirect that in the past we lived with the certainty of pandemics but an uncertainty on how many would die. This is now being blurred by science’s ability to better detect and measure infection together with social media’s ability to make these numbers transparent. We are now living with the uncertainty of pandemics but certainty on the numbers that are dying. No matter how small the absolute number of deaths relative to other major causes of death, this knowledge has created a dis-proportionate response, where our sensibilities re-connect to our Christo-Judeo belief in the sanctity of the individual life and with it, collectivism.
When individualism and collectivism clash, we look to politics to help us create a set of rules to navigate between the two. Politics has to navigate the complex choice between a short-term decision that would solve a known issue but at the cost of our beliefs, against protecting our beliefs for the sake of a potential risk that may never happen. If we believe in individualism, it should be on those insisting on increased surveillance to evidence how those rights will continue to be protected and enforced. After all, what is to stop the same capability from being used for bad, by a future populist government learning from the playbook developed by Russia and China. If we don’t protect our rights today, we lose them tomorrow. Those on the left or those defending civil liberties are on the back foot, unsure of themselves. When faced with a conflict between short and long term decisions, the short term always wins. In politics, thoughtful deliberation is perceived not as a sign of strength but as a sign of weakness. With each successive act of terrorism or now public health concern is it any wonder we find personal freedoms continuously eroded? Temporary changes are rarely reversed.
Covid 19 is also challenging our political belief in centralisation vs de-centralisation. What has been most evident about the political response in the centralised EU, is that there is no EU. It is each member for themselves. Even in Brexit Britain, the government wasn’t able to act fast enough and so when speed is of the essence, it was people and businesses that defaulted back to individualism to make decisions as locally as possible. Centralisation was no longer an end, but a means to secure resources. At the same time, whether you believe the official figures or not, no one is denying the efficiencies that a centralised, collectivist model such as that in China can bring to bear when faced with an existential challenge.
We live in an age where information flows more freely and is ever more accessible. This is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, as our horizons expand, we learn more about ourselves and our place in the world. Given enough time to reflect, we all transition naturally from reckless teenagers at war with the world, to finding ourselves older, wiser and at peace with the world. But where we don’t have enough time to reflect, and a problem appears too big, too complex or in a state of too much flux, it can overwhelm our capacity to assimilate the information into what we already believe. Without the luxury of time, we make decisions in the heat of the moment, reducing complex issues to simple binary choices. We defer reasoned judgment to gut instinct alone. When asked as to what measures President Trump would rely on to decide how and when to lift Covid-19 restrictions, his response was that he wouldn’t be using any. He alone would decide how to respond to the most serious economic challenge the US has ever faced. Whilst he pointed to his head, it would have been more accurate for him to point to his gut.
At times like this we are at our most vulnerable. With improved education, telecommunications and transport should have come more self-certainty, more nuance, and greater openness but in practice we continue to see the opposite. The world is becoming less certain, more binary and more closed. Was this the way it was meant to be?
