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.