The Political Aftermath of Covid

The post is part of a chapter in my book “The Slow Walk to tyranny”. Learn more about my book by clicking the link.

The effect of COVID-19 on society and the political system can be considered one of the most meaningful destabilizers to Western democracies since the French Revolution and the Civil War in the United States. It changed many things and opened many doors which arguably should have never been opened. The topic is not widely addressed, and I believe it is not understood correctly by many. Nevertheless, it marked a drastic change that has not been concluded or brought to its end. For many people, the Covid period is an emotional black hall that should not be addressed. The emotional weight, the many controversies about its origin, and the real health impact on society are still unclear, and for many, they are better left alone. It was a tragic moment that changed everyone's reality, changed how we see health, and changed our interaction with society, our friends, our neighbours, and our government. While I have a lot to say about the subject in general, for this book, I will concentrate only on the political aspect of this period and how it affected us as a society. I will avoid speculating on medical data and its origin or making judgment calls about people's behaviour. I believe the line that the government crossed in this period is so meaningful and impactful on the structure of democracy that this topic, above all, should be the first and maybe only conversation we should have at this moment.

In a democracy, the relationship between the government and its citizens should be a relationship of service. The government, elected by the people, functions as a management body that should promote the healthy and productive function of the market by overseeing it and limiting it in the form of regulations and laws. The process in which it is done should be straightforward and require a vote of the elected representatives after passing a process of scrutiny and numerous committees formed by professionals, overseen by the ruling system. In a democratic system, government power is theoretically limited by the Constitution and the court, both in its reach and capacities. Preventing extreme oppression of minorities or the takeover of a tyrannical group by manipulating the system. From the citizens' side, democracy promises freedom, private ownership, transparency, and equality in front of the law. Due to its Constitution, the US has a more solid foundation in reference to freedom than other Europeans. Regardless of the clarity and variation of constitutions, Freedom to express oneself, ownership of properties, and the right to defend oneself, work, gather, and move are all rights shared in Western democracy. It is exactly these rights added to equality of opportunities and equality in front of the law that people expect their government to hold and fight for. Not so long ago, many people sacrificed their lives fighting for these values and rights, allowing the Western alliance to win the Second World War and paving the way for a freer, more equal, and prosperous world.

Accountability of the government was always on shaky ground in the West. Most citizens accepted on themselves that a limited amount of corruption existed in the system and lived with it. Some fought it more, and some others less. For many people, the belief in their capacity to replace the government in the next election and the overwatching eye of the courts sufficed. On many occasions, if politicians crossed the line, they resigned by themselves due to social pressures and to avoid public humiliation. Investigative committees have been established over the years to protect the integrity of democracy and keep politicians at bay, promoting government transparency. Over time, a general equilibrium has been established, dictating the relationship between the government and its citizens and their limitations. This general equilibrium and its basic assumptions are what I define as "the Western democratic social contract." Not like the Social contract discussed by many great philosophers (Hobbes16, Lock17, and Rousseau18), which delves into a philosophical argument regarding the original state of humans and how we come to be a society, The social contract I'm referring to is only quasi-philosophical and address only the current status quo, ignoring anything that came before it. Practically, it refers to the set of beliefs all citizens in the early 21st century held regarding their relationship with the government, its role in society, the general structure, and its limitations. I call it quasi-philosophical because this "agreement" or set of beliefs held by the public is originally built upon a constitution and the foundation of democracy as a whole. There is nothing philosophical about it once it is written and integrated into law. On the other side, and as I will show in a moment, it is somehow philosophical because the system and the social contract at its core hold true only as long as the government upholds it. From this perspective, the social contract is not held on equal footing but is based on the belief we all hold as citizens that the government will hold its end of the bargain. After all, the government can break it at any given moment. The power is always in its hands. Furthermore, many of the assumptions held concerning the "Western democratic social contract" exist only because they were never really tested. We just all consciously or unconsciously prefer to believe they are true.

A great example of this is the case in many European countries. In most countries, the people agreed to not hold any weapons, allowing the government to monopolize guns. The assumption underlying this agreement between the citizenry and the government is that the government from its side will never use it against its law-abiding citizens. Practically, the only reason this assumption holds true is just because it has never been proven wrong. The harsh reality is that if this assumption does not hold, Most European citizens will be unable to defend themselves. Hopefully, it makes the Second Amendment of the US Constitution more relevant.

The Social contract creates a status quo and stability for society and the political system. It creates boundaries to the game we are all playing and allows people to concentrate peacefully on their own business. It is a fundamental aspect of a functioning democracy as it is for any other social game we decide to play. It builds trust and promotes healthy collaboration. Covid changed it all. It was a tragic moment that broke the status quo and the social contract. It was neither the Virus nor the potential danger. It was the actions that governments worldwide almost anonymously decided to take and how they executed them. Actions that only a few years before Covid would have been unimaginable in a free democracy. Actions that used to be associated with communist regimes in China. By doing so, they crossed a line by changing the game's rules and breaking the social contract. Many, if not all, governments in the West decided to take an anti-democratic approach, closing by force the economy, locking citizens in their homes, limiting their movements, capacity to work, meet, and mainly having the freedom to choose for themselves. This decision and many other policies that followed were imposed as decrees that never got voted on or have been only in a later stage. A general censorship campaign has started for the sake of "protecting" adult-free people from being exposed to what the government arbitrarily considered to be "misinformation" and "Disinformation." They forced people to vaccinate as the only route to get back limited freedom and imposed draconian measures on all the uncomplying population.

Questions relating to the necessity of these measures and the efficacy of their outcome are not relevant to this discussion. Personal opinions or the answers to these questions do not affect in any way the validity of the problem I'm trying to raise in this conversation. The only relevant aspect of the government's draconian actions is how they were taken and their implication concerning democracy and the existing social contract. It is all that matters in the long run and the source of many problems that evolved since then. A line has been crossed that was never crossed before. It broke the structure we all believed we were living in. Opening the door to chaos, violence, and exponential disintegration of democracy. The main issue with crossing this line is that we never reestablished a new frame or contract that clearly limited the game's rules. We just all understood that we were living in a new reality in which the old rules no longer applied. The terror associated with facing the unknown spread in the system, creating chaos as a lack of trust and violence started to spread. I will even go as far as to say that the violation of the game's rules had such a profound effect on the population that it affected all aspects of life for most citizens, promoting distrust in our neighbours, friends, family, and communities.

One of the most devastating effects of breaking the social contract we all used to hold is that it pushed us all into chaos. This chaos prevents us from framing the reasonable expectation we can have regarding the political power the government can have on us. In short, it broke our belief that we are living in a real democracy that has a system in place to protect both its citizens and itself from tyranny or autocracy. A clear example of this can be seen in how politicians in recent elections addressed their opponents and the extreme belief people hold regarding the potential outcome in case some opponents win. Since Covid, we have seen in several elections, including the one in the US, doomsday predictions about a dictatorial takeover of the right and the left. The fact that citizens are willing to hold these ideas as truth and have a real fear of such a possible future is a clear symptom of the non-existing social contract and the confusion about the validity of the structure of democracy itself. The general chaos built as the game's rules crumbled, turning people against each other. As time went by, politicians became more vocal and extreme in their tone, accusing their opponents of Fascism and tyrannical ambition and even suggesting similarities with Hitler. Elections in many Western countries turn into a fear festival. The outcome of this change is that for many voters, it is no longer a question of the best candidate to promote a better future but avoiding the next dictatorial takeover. Fear is a horrible virus created by our incapability to control the future. It is the outcome of facing the unknown, brought by the realization that the game's rules no longer stand. Without a clear structure, no trust can be achieved, and the most horrible scenarios seem more realistic than ever. The division and extremism all over the West is a direct result of the notion we all have that we are no longer living in what we consider until recently to be a fair, free, and equal democracy.

Another outcome of the breach of the foundation of democracy seen in the post-COVID era is the new outreach of government. As the rules have been broken, a new step into new territories has been made. Questions regarding how far a government can go became a new testing ground for many Western governments. The recent increase in surveillance, the mounting amount of censorship, the open corruption, and the increase in regulation observed all over the West are undisputable. I believe that it is all part of a process taken by the government to test how far they can go.  The fact that it contradicts some fundamental democratic principles does not seem to bother them much, as many understand that the Constitution can be violated or changed. The recent call of the progressive party in the US to cancel the First and Second Amendments is a clear example of this process. The latest step taken in the UK, jailing people for expressing their opinions on social media, is another horrible step that would not be imaginable in a free democracy ten years ago. Governments that discovered their newly obtained power are searching to understand their limits. These concerning developments are playing a major role in the increasing division and polarization of society. The violent action taken by governments sets an example for many young people, legitimizing the use of violence for what they subjectively believe is a just cause. As the rule of law is falling apart, people start taking the law into their own hands. Creating new standards for what is legitimate based on their personal notion of justice.

The shift we all experienced in the COVID period needs to be addressed if we are to reestablish a functioning democracy held by the rule of law. By refusing to address this issue, we are robbing ourselves of the capacity to truly understand the source of our problem. If we are to handle with it and reestablish a stable and fair democratic system that people can trust, clear lines should be drawn again. Not based on the newest standard of tyranny but based on the old values of democracy. The old democracy dictated that the government exists to serve the people, with as little interference possible by the government under rules that allow people to be as free as possible. Without it, we cannot reestablish trust with our government, communities, and neighbours.

Should We Save Democracy?

Democracy is part of the Western culture. It has been developed and maintained by its people as part of their development. For many people in our current generation, democracy is a given. They have been born in this system, raised in it, and educated to see it as the best option available for human governance. Wars in recent decades have been fought under its banner. Making its defense the primary justification for violence all over the world. The West and the world as we know it today exist thanks to democracy and its values.

After many generations living within a democratic framework, people find it hard to truly define what democracy is. Or at least the fundamental ideas that support it. We all know how to repeat that democracy is a governing system that promotes freedom and equality. We all hold the notion that it is a governing mechanism that allows people to elect people for the people and promotes fairness and accountability. Regardless, when asked, most people are not aware neither of how young is the concept of democracy nor what were the fundamental philosophical ideas that brought it all to be. 

Democracy is revolutionary for many reasons. It flipped the concept of governance on its head. Before the creation of democracy, as we know it today, all governing systems were created to support the ruling class. Kings, aristocracy, tyranny, and autocracy are built in a way in which the concentration of power and unlimited control support the ruling class. In such a system, the majority of the population exists to support the ruling class. Their rights are limited to nonexistence, laws are made and changed by the ruling class, and oppression is part of the system. Democracy is different. It is the first system that comes from the people for the people. As such, the interest of the people takes the main stage. A separation of forces exists between the ruling, judging, and enforcing powers, creating a balance of power to protect the system and its people. In a democracy, the government exists to serve the people. It is a revolutionary idea that cannot be taken for granted. After all, in the majority of the world, for the most significant part of human history, this was not the way we did business. This principle underlying the idea of democracy and defining it is a fundamental concept we should keep in mind throughout our investigation. This principle by itself should always be the first standard with which one should evaluate the state of a specific democratic system and its legitimacy.

A long and complicated philosophical path has been taken in the West to achieve what many people see as obvious. To create the system and justify it, a long process of thinkers had to develop, debate, and establish ideas about the human condition that allowed the creation of such a revolutionary system. Human rights, duties, equality, freedom, and states were not evident at all. Nation-states did not exist before the 17th century in Europe. Passports did not exist before the second world war. Income tax was uncommon before the middle of the 20th century, and a court system equal to or above the governing elite. Democracy as we know it today is young and can be seen as experimental. The US can be seen as the first one to establish it 200 years ago, while Europe, in its majority, didn’t establish it much later. In some cases, toward the end of the 20th century, and in others, only after WW2.

There is nothing obvious about our current society. Making it vulnerable to attacks from outside and from within. The core ideas holding democracy are the cornerstone of the system itself. They exist to protect, justify, and defend the system. If not withheld and constantly reinforced, nothing will stay in the basics of the system, allowing it to survive and grow. The separation of the three heads of democracy is fundamental and should be emphasized. It protects the system from itself. The idea that government power should be limited by predetermined standards, upheld by a separate body, should be restrained by the natural process of concentration of power. It promises by itself the incapacity of a momentary electorate to take over the system. The limitation of the judging arm as a supervisor and watchdog by itself limits its power to a certain extent. Making it a great balancing force. The third part of this trio is the executing part, which by itself is problematic. The correct line to draw in this case will concern only the inner population executing units. The governing part directly commands the military, making it irrelevant to our conversation.

On the other hand, the police, which are in charge of executing laws and keeping orders, are in a democratic structure independent to a certain extent from the governing party. Its original purpose is to keep the citizens safe in their own cities. Working for the sake of the safety of the citizens. This claim is more complicated to evaluate as the state of this separation in most Western countries is not clear-cut. Making it by itself a complex subject. Nevertheless, some level of autonomy exists, as the police force is not operating as a private army of a politician, making it separate and autonomous to a certain extent.

Following several generations of peace and home, it seems the Western societies and the democracy that support them are falling apart. A general dissatisfaction is felt all over the West. Creating waves of violence and polarisation of its people. This process has been observed in the last 20 years, accelerating in recent years. It seems we are living in a “Democratic Crisis.” Putting all the project in question. This is seen all over the Western world and can be identified by the decline in trust in the governing institutions, the rising corruption seen all over the West, the polarization of its population, and the waves of violence erupting more often than before. The development of democracy is at a crossroads. The rise of communist ideologies can be seen as promoted within Western society. A growing part of the population seems dissatisfied with the current system, making the conversation and request for a better, valid, and relevant alternative.

To better understand our options, I believe we need to start by understanding the problem at hand. It seems the issue has to do with the deterioration of everything that made democracy possible to begin with. It is a fact that on many levels, the outcome of the last 20 years has not been favorable for a big part of the population, regardless of the leaning of any specific government in this period. It seems democracy has failed many people, making them want to explore alternatives to avoid continuing with the current state. As I wrote in one of my previous book called  “Back to Ourselves,” many extreme changes happened to us in the last 150 years. Changing the rules of the game and creating a new reality. The changes speed and impact did not give enough time to assimilate and regroup before moving forward. Leaving us vulnerable to small social issues that became, over time, the foundation for the reality we are currently living in. It seems we have walked a long way without reevaluating the philosophical and practical ideas that hold democracy. I believe the irrelevance of the current Political Right and Left (Republicans and Democrats) is a direct consequence of that process. They are both running after their own tale. Concentrating on solutions for the symptoms and not the sickness of our society.

The general dissatisfaction we are currently experiencing is the end of a process that evolved for a few decades. The division of society and it's leaning toward extreme left or right are a clear symptom of this process. Covid definitely didn’t help in any way. The West is currently at a crossroads in which a change is inevitable. The most relevant questions are what change it will be, who will lead it, and whether it will create a better future. Looking back on Western society, many similarities exist between our current state and the late  18th century. Back then, society was in the process of changing its fundamental governing structure hand in hand with the elimination of the power the traditional Christianity and the church had for centuries. This societal change, led by the Enlightenment movement, has redefined society and its human condition. It allowed democracy to emerge after over 1,700 years of absence in the West. Establishing new philosophical ideas that lead the people to demand a new order.

The striking similarities can be seen everywhere. The redefinition of words and concepts, the increased disparity between the ruling and the working class, the development of new dogmas, and the deep understanding of a coming change are all parallels. Democracy as we know it today has been created, formed, and spread based on the thinkers and actions of that period. It shaped the new man as part of his nation, introduced the concept of subjectivism, and laid down the philosophical basis for the majority of the socialist movements that evolved since then. It was a period of revolt and change. One that arguably was much needed. Redefining Europe as a whole and the rest of the world with it. In their book “The Fourth Turning,” Neil Howe and William Strauss Spoke of a cyclicality observed in human evolution. The general explanation is that every four generations, society reaches a point in which the system no longer satisfies the needs of the young generation, bringing to war and destruction, allowing the reconstruction of a society that fits better the needs of the people fighting their fight. Many people who consider themselves knowledgeable conclude that we are in a fourth turning moment. Making the issue a problem that will pass if we let the time do its thing. Their underlying assumption is that while a change is needed, the new system rebuilt by the new generation will be a different variation of what we know with a twist after the hardship to come. Their assumption is based on a recency bias. One that assumes that if things were in a certain way until now, they would probably continue in kind of the same way.

I will argue differently. I believe the democratic establishment is at risk. The majority of the people who address this crisis as a “Fourth Turning” miss the biggest picture. Democracy is young and fragile. The system has failed many people in the last 20 years, creating a new generation that does not take for granted that democracy is an absolute good. It is not evident to me that democracy will prevail this time around. Socialism is on the rise, hailed by many young adults. The incapacity of the Bommer generation to justify democracy doesn’t help either. If history can teach us anything, I would say that all the foundation for the general collapse of democracy has been laid out in the open. It is just a question of how much more deterioration is needed and where the alternative will come from. Organizations such as the WEF that aim for a one-world technocrat government, the rise of the Chinese, and the power grab of many Western governments are all powers that push society into such alternatives. The voices supporting democracy are fading away as they find little explanation to justify their failure in the last 20 years.

History can be seen only from a specific point of view. One that follows a particular pattern. History, as a general concept, does not exist. It is everywhere and always a well-defined social process, concentrating on its advancement and consequences. If I’m right, Looking at history as the development of philosophy (engulfing in its politics. Yes, there is no politics without philosophy, but we will arrive at this point later on), It can be said that the end of history has been reached with the death of Nietzsche. This is true if one believes that no more development is possible and that the current human state is the best we can reach. I am confident that this is not the case. If this is the best humans can create, maybe the cynicism movement is right, and we have no hope. Our current state is poor at best, if not catastrophic. When writing the lines above, I’m not referring in any case to the human standard of living or its current freedom. Undeniably, we are living in the best period ever lived by humans. The technological advancements of the last 150 years, the development of free democracies, and the introduction of medicine have created a standard of living never dreamed of 200 years ago. My pessimism expressed above is unrelated to all of that, as it addresses the state of our society and the philosophy that supports it.

The great philosophers of the past have created a path that allowed us to march toward democracy. I do not doubt in my mind that democracy is the best way to govern ourselves. My point is that we are far from finishing our work. We are much closer than ever, but still far enough to call it a day. I believe that if Nietzsche was the last philosopher, the end is clear. One that will bring us back to a non-democratic governance. We will return to our old habits, erasing all the fundamental work that man has done before and for us. There is no doubt in my mind, as I wrote in my 2018 book “Back to Ourselves, that the current structure of democracy is doomed to fail. It is a natural path for any new experiment or unknown pass. It requires a long process of trial and error. One that creates some misery and harshness in its process. Nevertheless precisely, these failures will allow us to build a better structure of democracy. One that will bring prosperity, freedom, equality of opportunities, and peace to humans as a whole.

After long reflection on the subject, I came to believe the only way to save the democratic establishment is to reorganize and refine it. To make it relevant to our current existence based on this organism's development and natural evolution over time. I believe that there is a solution for this crisis that will make democracy more relevant and potentially the best governing system for humans as a whole. The fact that democracy is failing should have been predicted by many thinkers as it has been established in a different period and is by itself an experiment. Which doesn’t mean it is the wrong mechanism. It implies that a change is needed. One that takes the new developments of the last 60 years into consideration and brings back the system to be relevant for the people living in it.

As I mentioned previously, The democratic structure we knew no longer existed. Some still claim it exists mainly due to their mental need of delusion, and others due to their incapacity to accept it is lost. A change is upon us whether we like it or not. If we are to continue to live in a democratic society, we need to reshape it is unavoidable. If we, as a Western society, will not manage to do so, it is just a question of time until we lose it. It is not too late to make this change. It is going to be painful and challenging. But in my mind, any alternative is just much worse.

For more interesting conversations about complicated subjects, click here.

If you like what you read, please consider subscribing to my newsletter.

In my books, I cover important topics in dept, hoping to start constructive conversations and promote a better future. Click here to see my books.