What political lessons can be learned from the management of the global coronavirus crisis ? The answers of political scientist Guillaume Bernard.
One of Us. — How did the States react to the Covid-19 pandemic?
Guillaume Bernard. — Western governments have, on the whole, taken action in haste. By acting too late, through lack of preparation, they often took radical measures (halting economic and social life) and repressive measures (population confinement). This was only made possible due to a “hyping up” of information which dramatized the situation, paralyzed the public’s way of thinking and made passions control the public debate (the dread and panic of contamination and death).
What political lesson will governments learn from the crisis, notably in Europe ?
It is to be feared that those in power have still not understood what was at the root of their lack of preparation: their unshakeable faith in the merits of a globalized society consisting not of interdependence but of the abandonment of entire areas of sovereignty (international division of labour, relocation), a “global village” where borders would be doomed to disappear and where, above all, people would be interchangeable.
The welfare state (perfectly compatible with a liberal vision of society) and the European Union have shown their shortcomings, but the globalised elites, led by Emmanuel Macron, want to give them even more prominence. During a time, forced and constrained by the events that have taken place, they have become the defenders of sovereignty. But they only want borders outside the European Union, which is, in their view, nothing more than an area without its own identity and without clear demarcation… It is even possible that the health crisis will serve as a pretext for them to relaunch the project of a European federal state where the federated units would no longer be nation states but large regions on the model of the German Länder.
Most European countries resorted to exceptional measures to contain the effects of the pandemic, based on expert scientific advice. In a crisis situation, all powers tend to follow their natural inclination and abuse their powers. Will the Social Hygiene Movement be the totalitarian temptation in the political leadership of modern states ?
The coronavirus crisis has, quite explicitly, accelerated the slide towards “soft” totalitarianism: firstly, in terms of citizens’ relations with the public authorities, and secondly in terms of the discourse of the latter. The State supervises its citizens and demands obedience or even subservience from them (the State can do anything); in exchange, it distributes benefits to them (entitlements), which infantilizes them (the State owes everything). Added to this is what lies at the very heart of totalitarianism, in this case the desolation-ideology couple: a clean slate on the one hand, the championing of a substitute ideology on the other, namely science. Politicians have sought to instrumentalize the argument of scientific authority: their wait-and-see attitude and then their drastic measures would have always been the thoughtful and rational result of the medical data at their disposal. The government fades behind governance, the political decision behind the implacability of science. This allows us to muzzle criticism: to claim that other measures that could have been taken would be tantamount to disputing the indisputable: science; it would be, at best, a far-fetched idea, at worst a reckless and dangerous one.
This is a form of intellectual terrorism that is illustrated by the astonishing force of the precautionary principle, so instrumental in this health crisis. Contrary to appearances, the precautionary principle is not the same as prudence; it is even a genuine forgery. Since risk is an intrinsic part of life, prudence leads to confronting it; it consists of making an inventory of possible solutions and making a choice in order to act. The precautionary principle leads, under the pretext of the existence of a risk, to abstention or even prohibition. It offers a very hygienic but totally artificial paradise; it gives the appearance of eliminating the risk by refusing to confront it.
Didn’t the health crisis initially reveal an existential crisis ?
While the average citizen did not have (and still does not have) reliable and accurate information on the mortality rate of Covid-19, it seems that a large part of the population was gripped by a neurotic fear of death (as if it were not the only certain thing in every human existence). Has this led to an awareness of the need to give meaning (meaning and direction as commonly noted) to life? It is not certain. Overall, it has instead revealed a compulsive relationship with a purely biological and eminently materialistic life. The life that was defended was not the innocent or (pro)creative life of beauty. No, it was life for life: a psychological attitude bordering on intellectual and moral perversion where ends and means are confused. Of course, this is not a question of denying legitimate biological needs. But it is no less essential to point out that the prohibition of worship has, for the most part, aroused very little indignation. Almost all politicians have revealed their disinterest or even contempt for religion and, to say the least, their total ignorance of religion, and in particular, Catholicism.
However, have events not shown an awareness of the dangers of “globalism” and ideological myths ?
The last few months have revealed a sort of schizophrenia: on the one hand, there has been a general recognition that “natural” social bodies (the family, the nation) are indispensable protective frameworks and, on the other hand, an implicit acceptance of the theoretical process of social contractualism according to which, if men are to obtain security (avoid death), they should abdicate all or part (depending on who is doing it) of their personal liberties. Western societies thus appear to be in an ambivalent situation: there is, for various and sometimes contradictory reasons, a return of attachment to the local and the rural, the family and the national but, “at the same time”, acceptance (less and less important, it is true) of the so-called open society, i.e. unlimited and progressive.
Because these are the principles on which modern society is based (materialism, contractualism, subjectivism) which are at the origin of the multiple insecurities that plague it (personal, social and cultural insecurities), the crisis of regime is most likely there. But if it is felt by all or almost all, its causes have not yet been fully identified. Our contemporaries no longer really trust progressive thinking, but they do not yet accuse it.
Interview by Thierry de La Villejégu and Philippe de Saint-Germain.
