At the start of 2020, the world was confronted with facing a new form of virus which originated in China. Being highly contagious, the virus inadvertently propelled many of China’s neighbours such as Singapore into the frontlines of the fight against the disease. Now, just 3 months later, Covid-19 has dramatically changed the world. The global economy is grinding to a halt, with many predicting that we are inevitably headed towards a recession that will dwarf the 2008 Financial Crisis and seemingly invincible nations such as America will be brought to their knees. Alarmingly, the number of confirmed cases continues to increase exponentially in the West, showing no signs of slowing down. This is despite the fact that the West had months to prepare for a pandemic, more information about the virus than their Asian counterparts and clear examples of protocols to follow set out by the nations that were the first to experience it. Many have theorized that this stark contrast between the East and the West could be explained through culture. I propose to look at it through a political lens, in order to analyse and investigate how the political systems of countries affect how they have handled the pandemic so far.

Hypothetical framework
Before delving into the subject further, it should be clarified that this article is merely a hypothetical thought experiment. Many assumptions have been made that may not reflect the exact reality of the situation. For instance, in classifying ‘political systems’ I have only considered the two extremes of the spectrum — the democratic and authoritarian systems. For the purpose of keeping this article brief, I shall avoid indulging in the typologies within these systems. Additionally, for further simplification, factors such as culture and population size will not be acknowledged within this framework even though they will influence a government’s ability to handle such crises. Furthermore, many authoritarian countries are less transparent with statistics; so, although we have used numbers that have been supplied by them for this article, these can be subject to scrutiny.

This paper defines democracy as a decentralized system with competing multiple parties, where people elect government representatives. These systems typically value rights, freedom of assembly and speech, and equality. A prime example of such a system would be the USA. In contrast, an authoritarian government is defined as regimes without competitive electoral systems. They are usually one-party systems with strong central power and limited political freedom which means that any potential challengers are suppressed. China, governed solely by the Communist Party, is an authoritarian regime.

USA: Democratic
One of the countries that have been significantly hit by the virus is the USA. ‘The Chinese Virus’ was not a concern for the American government until recently and was dismissed as a ‘foreign’ problem. America now has over double the number of cases in China and the highest amount in the world. The variation of political inclination across states has meant that state governors are opting to take different stances on the issue. The decentralised nature of the system, one of America’s unique selling points, has become a weakness as it has led to an inconsistent approach to the crisis across the country. Democracies may also struggle to take stricter measures during emergencies, with leaders lacking the absoluteness of power usually present in an authoritarian regime. Additionally, unlike China, where the government can easily crush down criticizers, the inherently competitive nature of a democracy means that leaders are more concerned about the public’s perception of the actions they take. Leaders may, therefore, act in ways that could benefit the economy, rather than people’s health, if that leads to an increase in their approval ratings. In fact, Trump has had some of the highest approval ratings of his entire presidential term during the past few weeks. It is also likely that right-wing conservatives and business groups — who will no doubt provide crucial support during the election term — heavily influence the decisions made by the President as they push him to “get the economy going” despite the pandemic; discouraging any drastic measures that may result in an economic shutdown. All of these factors have attributed to slower decision making and less strict measures, but only time will tell the true cost of such responses.

China: Authoritarian
China’s woes began much earlier, in mid-January, when a growing number of people within Wuhan, started exhibiting similar symptoms. Within 2 weeks, the country had managed to identify the virus and lock down the entire city of Wuhan in order to control the spread. Within another 2 weeks, the government built new hospitals in Wuhan to accommodate for the growing number of cases. Now, after almost 2 months of isolation, the city has partially re-opened as the number of cases in China continues to steadily decrease; an extraordinary feat. Through monitoring people’s smartphones and the use of facial recognition technology, the Chinese government was able to trace the movements of suspected carriers and obliging people to check and report their body temperature allowed them to quickly identify anyone who may have been infected. The number of cases and deaths that seemed high in January is now dwarfed by the likes of Italy and the United States and a number of organizations such as WHO have praised the Chinese efforts to keep the virus at bay. Nevertheless, we must understand that the state was able to impose such rules because of the political system of the country. The top-down nature of the government where there is centralised decision-making will lead to quicker decisions that translate into more efficient actions. Additionally, being an authoritarian regime, the Chinese government exhibited no reluctance or hesitance when they chose to lock down 11 million people. Privacy was disregarded in the name of health, allowing the government to monitor people in draconian ways that would be illegal in most other countries. The pandemic has given the government a justifiable reason to increase surveillance on their citizens, but under such a totalitarian system, they could continue such surveillance long after the pandemic has stopped. Therefore, although the government has performed quite exceptionally within the crisis, the hidden costs of living under such a regime should be considered as well.

Singapore: Striking the right balance
Political systems at both ends of the spectrum will obviously exhibit flaws. Nevertheless, I think the time of cataclysm is a time of action and find myself more empathetic towards authoritarian approaches. However, I do not advocate for curtailing civil liberties and freedoms in the name of public safety, only to have a corrupt government (as many authoritarian governments are known to be) exploit the people to tighten their own grip on power. Therefore, instead of China’s approach, I believe that the approach taken by Singapore can be considered exemplary for other countries during this time of emergency. Although power is concentrated at the top, and the government has imposed very strict measures with severe punishments, they also strive to empower their citizens by being supportive and completely transparent and honest with them. Therefore, the public trusts the government and respects regulations that have been put in place. Scrupulous quarantining and travel bans, rigorous contact tracing and widespread testing has allowed this tiny country to maintain a low death rate, despite it being one of the first countries to be infected outside of China.

Maldives: The shift from democratic to authoritarian
It is also worth mentioning that my home country, the Maldives is faring quite well due to the initiative shown by the government during such difficult times. Although we are not as developed and lack the medical resources and prowess of any of the countries mentioned above, through a strict quarantine procedure, testing and most importantly, luck, we have managed to keep the number of infections below 20. I was personally concerned that the current government, as they are quite left-winged, liberal and place great emphasis on freedom and equality, will be too soft on the situation; resulting in delayed decisions that are not strict or effective enough to keep the ticking time bomb of Covid-19 from exploding. However, they took an authoritarian stance and took drastic measures that were necessary for keeping the public safe. The health of the people was prioritized over the economy as they made bold decisions such as banning most travellers flying in, even though tourism is the lifeline of the nation accounting for almost 30% of our GDP. They even went as far as banning a program on Channel 13, significantly curtailing freedom of press, because they were spreading false information about the virus. This move caught me by surprise as it was unprecedented; one that is not akin to the philosophies echoed by the yellows in Maldives. Nevertheless, this authoritarian-style move was what made me firmly believe that the current administration firmly holds the reigns of the situation. Of course, admittedly, there is only so much that a government can do to tame such a virus.

Even though the purpose of this article was to analyse how well political systems have fared so far during such a grim period, the political systems themselves don’t matter much at the moment. What matters are the actions taken by those in charge, as well as the public. What we need during this crisis is a government and a leader who is quick to act, well-informed and places the protection of the people above all else. We need to learn from what other countries have done well, and from what they have done poorly as well. Above all else, we need to inform ourselves and act responsibly, both for our sake and for society’s. Because whether we live in a democracy or an authoritarian regime, at the end of the day what we all want right now is to stay safe and to survive this ordeal.