Failing the COVID-19 test of democratic governance

     

 

We are in a narrative battle over what type of governance model should prevail in the 21st century, notes Eileen Donahoe (above, left), Executive Director of the Global Digital Policy Incubator at Stanford University Cyber Policy Center. We were already at risk of an unconscious drift toward digital authoritarianism before COVID-19 hit. Failure of democracies to even consider the impact of new digital tools and emergency regulations on human rights during this pandemic will only exacerbate this trend.

But most democratic governments are failing on two fronts: first, in combatting the virus effectively, and second, in applying human rights analysis to the emergency measures taken, she writes for the American Interest:

  • On the first front, a few democracies, most notably South Korea and Taiwan, were relatively decisive in responding to the virus. …Sadly, the responses of many other democratic governments were deficient. Many were woefully ill-prepared, even after getting notice that this type of pandemic was a realistic possibility. Even worse, some exacerbated the threat with confusing public messaging and misinformation about the disease or treatments. …. Such failures erode public confidence in the competence and credibility of government—and in the democratic governance model itself.
  • But beyond demonstrating competence in protecting public health, democratic governments also must articulate how their tactics meet the test of necessity, proportionality, and legality. Generally speaking, this has not happened. Many democracies have enacted emergency measures normally associated with authoritarians, such as sweeping police powers, bans on public assembly, suspension of elections, closure of courts, intrusive surveillance, and closed borders.

Now is the time when democratic governments must show their mettle and demonstrate the feasibility of adhering to their own normative commitments, adds Donahoe, and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) board member. Unless they assert more effective, values-driven leadership, COVID-19 could hasten the demise of the post-WWII liberal international order. The consequence of that loss will be with us long after the virus is gone.

Drawing on a new book, of The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy, co-editor Eri Bertsou, Senior Researcher in Comparative Politics at the University of Zurich, presents five lessons learned from research on technocratic politics and the role of independent experts in democratic systems:

1. Independent experts are key parts of modern democratic systems – even if technocratic power is often described as a counterweight to democratic power. …. Independence and scientific expertise allows technocrats to advocate for responsible governance – efficient and optimal outcomes that are an integral part of democratic political systems.

2. Technocratic expertise can be non-partisan, but not apolitical. The moment independent experts operate within politics, make political decisions, or are involved in the decision-making process, they become political actors. Political decisions are formulated to achieve specific goals and have important implications, often redistributive in nature….

3. False dichotomies: an important caveat of independent expertise in politics. The belief that there can only ever be a choice between a ‘correct’ decision or a ‘wrong’ one is a false dichotomy. It makes opposition to technocratic advice impossible….

4. Technocratic expertise can have a positive impact in many democracies. Studying the effect of technocratic politics within democratic systems shows that most of the time, technocrats are invited in democratic politics to address shortcomings and failures. …

5. People evaluate independent experts relative to partisan political actors and vice-versa. Technocratic cabinets emerge in the presence of a crisis, when the existing partisan actors are unwilling or unable to respond to the social, economic or structural failures of the system….RTWT

The Alliance of Democracies Foundation in cooperation with Microsoft’s Defending Democracy Program presents a 3-part webinar #DefendDemocracy Virtual Series: “What you see is what you trust?” to discuss what threat disinformation and synthetic media – so-called deepfakes – pose to democracies today and in the future (below).

Speakers: Hany Farid, Professor for Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley Erica Greene, Non-resident Election Integrity Fellow, Alliance of Democracies Foundation Ashish Jaiman, Director Of Technology Operations, Microsoft Moderator: Eileen Donahoe, TCEI and Executive Director of Stanford’s Global Digital Policy Incubator.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email