As Covid-19 continues to spread throughout the world, many nations have implemented a variety of measures intended to combat its spread. Government actions have been focused on establishing lockdowns, closing non-essential businesses, urging citizens to practice social distancing and imposing travel restrictions. These measures are perceived as necessary for flattening the curve of infections and reducing the burden on an already overwhelmed healthcare system. While these policies are aimed at securing public health, some governments’ actions pose a real threat to democracy itself, seeking to undermine it.
As a first move, some European countries responded to the Covid-19 outbreak by suspending the Schengen border-free zone. Subsequently, governments took different approaches to the virus for their countries, where one particular policy attracted the attention of the European Union members and made alarms sound: emergency powers.
For instance, in Hungary, the far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been allowed to rule by decree during the state of emergency without a clear time limit. The duration of the state of emergency depends solely on his government and the Parliament, where his party has the majority. Orbán has gradually expanded his powers since taking office in 2010 and has achieved an exceptional centralization of power, hence, this calls to be vigilant and ensure the extra powers granted are not misused and the measures adopted do not exceed the duration and scale of the pandemic.
In order to face up moments of crisis, states of emergency grant leaders the power to bypass limitations imposed by democratic systems, therefore they become the ideal mechanism to erode democratic institutions, while maintaining the illusion of constitutional legitimacy. As a consequence of Hungary’s policies, the European Commission has emphatically stated that emergency measures cannot undercut democracy and must be limited to what is necessary and strictly proportional to the events occurred.
Moving to South America, particularly to Brazil, the Environment Minister Ricardo Salles made controversial statements when he suggested the government should take advantage of the pandemic to change all the rules and relax environmental regulations. His comments were known thanks to a video of the closed-door cabinet meeting released by the Supreme Court. This controversy rises as President Bolsonaro continues to advocate for the development of the Amazon and Brazil overtakes Russia to become the nation with the second-highest number of Covid-19 confirmed cases.
In the case of Sri Lanka, police have been ordered to arrest those who criticize officials involved in the Covid-19 response and those who spread fake information about the pandemic. Ethnic Tamils and Muslims have long endured police abuse, therefore these groups are especially concerned their individual rights will not be respected. Additionally, the pandemic has forced the country to delay its general elections, originally scheduled for April 25th after President Rajapaksa dissolved parliament on March 2nd. The Election Commission has rescheduled the poll for June 20th; until then, critics alert Sri Lanka is on the brink of a constitutional crisis as President Rajapaksa is running the government without parliamentary oversight.
Without doubt the most notorious and dramatic case to date on how this pandemic is being used to suppress individual freedoms has been the one of Hong Kong. Last week, Beijing announced it would impose a new security law over Hong Kong, violating the agreement that guarantees the island’s autonomy. In practice, this measure will allow the operation of Chinese security organs over Hong Kong territory. This would result in persecution of critics to the communist regime and a greater control over the Hong Kong government and its legislation. This law poses a threat to freedom of assembly and speech, the independence of the judiciary and other civil freedoms that are not guaranteed in mainland China.
The submissive Hong Kong government extended the prohibition of groups larger than eight people until June 4th, coincidentally the date that marks the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre when public demonstrations are usually carried out. It wasn’t long ago that China needed Hong Kong immensely. When it was handed over by the UK in 1997, the island proved to be an important source of wealth with a strong financial and legal system that would facilitate international commerce and attract foreign investments. In addition, it represented a fifth of China’s economy. It was because of these circumstances that China needed to maintain and respect the agreements over Hong Kong, outlined by the legal concept of “two countries, one system”. More than 20 years later, mainland China has been through enormous economic and social development, relegating Hong Kong’s importance; nowadays China’s economy is thirty times bigger than Hong Kong´s. It appears China is running out of patience and is going to take advantage of the fact that most part of the world is mired in crisis due to the pandemic and increase its interference in the island.
Even though it is true there are several nations where respect for democracy has been established over many decades and the application of emergency measures pose no threat for democratic institutions, it is imperative to establish democratic standards for the use of emergency situations for those nations where democracy lacks strength. That being the case, emergency measures must be proportionate, necessary and non-discriminatory. Global actors must remain vigilant and monitor the actions of governments in their so-called efforts to stop the pandemic.
Image credit: Наркологическая Клиника