The fight against COVID-19 is actually a fight to preserve values of self-sacrifice and solidarity against the instincts of self-preservation. Citizens affected in one form or another must be prepared to safeguard these values. In times of emergency, the leader must be able to speak up for noble causes. 

 

Is democracy so fragile that it is vulnerable to infectious diseases? Is a forceful strong authoritarianism a better system in a disaster crisis? The Chinese Communist Party certainly seems to be claiming so.

On January 29 Chinse President Xi Jinping stated before 170,000 Chinese Communist Party members in a teleconference that China’s handling of the coronavirus “once again demonstrated the notable advantages of the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics.” The way that China did this was by imposing prompt lockdown of the Wuhan region and using surveillance drones, tools democratic systems would be reluctant to use. For Beijing, this battle against the coronavirus is more than combating an epidemic disease. It’s a competition of global politics, and China’s authoritarian system has proven to be superior to that of an open democracy. On February 26, when the upper curve of those infected showed signs of flattening in China, the editorial of the People’s Daily boasted that the coronavirus is “crisis and test for the state governance system and its capability” and “showed that socialism with Chinese characteristics responds to the needs of the new era, ensures victory in the war against the coronavirus, and provides precious know-how to the world on fighting against the disease.” The world will now follow the authoritarian ways of China. 

The Western media wanted to see another side of this story, and the search began to counter Beijing’s triumphant declaration of victory against the coronavirus. It had to be a country in the front line of the battle against Covid-19; had to be a strong advocate of the democratic system of openness and transparency; and had to show results using tools that were not so asserting as the authoritarian way. The answer may well could be Korea. Smack in the middle of the battlefield against the coronavirus, Korea is in the course of catching up with the rapid proliferation with its capability which has included the globally recognized diagnostic kit. The country even boldly decided not to impose a lockdown in Daegu, city with the largest number of infected victims spreading in masses. 

The New York Times wrote a special report on Daegu dated February 25 about the proliferation in Daegu. The title was “In Coronavirus Crisis, Korean City Tries Openness, a Contrast to China.” A noteworthy part says: “If it works to contain the crisis, the strategy - aggressively monitoring for infections while keeping the city running- could be a template for more democratically inclined societies as the virus spreads worldwide, testing civil liberties” Furthermore, in a March 11 commentary in the Washington Post titled “South Korea shows that democracies can succeed against the coronavirus,“ Josh Rogin wrote “Regardless of our own viewpoints, Korea is representing the bloc of open, democratic states countering authoritarianism.”

A disaster of pandemic nature is a setting where both the strengths and weaknesses of a political system can be manifested. An authoritarian state employs the concentration strategy, and through it, the state can pour forth its influence in a short period of time. The lockdown of Wuhan is a prime example. Basic rights like of the citizens or protection of property, if they are not within the range of this concentration strategy, may fall behind in the list of priority. In a democratic state, this kind of total mobilization is much more difficult. This is what Beijing is claiming. It is like an intellectual challenge, as many intellectuals have claimed that in times of crisis an authoritarian system is not very effective. China wants to turn the tables. 

Why have the intellectuals assessed that an authoritarian system is more vulnerable before a disaster crisis? A crisis management does require the immediate mobilization of resources. However, more important is the management of information. Amartya Sen, the great thinker of our times and also recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics for his works on welfare economics, has viewed that “No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy.” Famine is a disaster that is fairly easy to prevent if resources can be allocated in time. Even poor countries can respond rather quickly. However, we have seen from time to time the failure by authoritarian states to deal with famine. When local food is scarce, in a democratic system, the local politicians and administrators respond quickly. Their positions and jobs depend on the constituencies and thus the voices of the people are important information. However, in an authoritarian system the most important information is what comes from the top, the leadership. It’s a top down information channel. Therefore, if the leadership in the authoritarian system is unaware of such a problem, like hunger among the people or simple neglects or turns a blind eye to it, then the problem intensifies. That’s how a famine starts. 

'A democracy is better in managing a crisis’

In dealing with a crisis management, the most important factor may not simply be material resources but information. Structurally, the gathering of information in an authoritarian system is simply weak. The one that had to pay an expensive prize to learn this was no other than Chairman Mao Zedong of China. More than 30 million people died as a result of the Great Leap Forward. It is said that Mao in 1962 stated before the communist party members, “without democracy, we would not know what is happening down there.”

Li Wenliang was an ophthalmologist in Wuhan. On December 2019 he sent a message to his fellow doctors in a chat group revealing that some of his patients had shown positive symptoms of what looked like the Sars virus (Sars is like a cousin to COVID-19). This spread outside the chat group. On January 3, Dr. Li was called in by the authorities and received a severe warning for “spreading negative comments on the internet.” He had to write a statement admitting to his wrong doing. Li went back to the hospital to care for his patients. He was infected with the COVID-19 on January 8, was isolated and treated from January 12. On February 1, Dr. Li was confirmed to have been infected with the virus. He died in less than a week on February 7. Dr. Li has become the symbol that represents the Chinese government’s censorship of information about the infectious disease.

Dr. Li’s tragedy sounds like a case that could appear in one of Sen’s writing. Li Wenliang was at the site; he had the specialization necessary that was able to detect something important was happening. The authorities of Wuhan were not interested in dealing with this crisis. The only concern was that one’s own turf was safe and sound. This was a prime example of what can happen when the authoritarian principles are in action. The Atlantic, an established publication that dates back to 1857, on February 24 carried an article titled “Democracies Are Better at Fighting Outbreaks.” It was a good illustration of the coronavirus outbreak and the competition between the global political systems, as viewed by the Western media. The report presents Dr. Li as an important factor.  “China’s cover-up of the virus was not the result of a system malfunction. In an authoritarian state, cover-ups happen by design,” the article states. As a result, the initial handling of the outbreak turned into a fiasco. Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin pointed out “(China’s) months of denial, coverups and missteps” had “played a major role in allowing the virus to spread to the rest of the world”. 

Since coronavirus is highly contagious, the ability to produce information in the country of origin is significant for everyone in the world. The inability by authoritarianism to share the truth has been revealed. An authoritarian system may be outstanding in producing information with the purpose of monitoring and keeping the people under control. But it is not in terms of producing relevant information in dire needs like for combating a proliferating virus. Sen’s claim coherently explains the weakness of an authoritarian political system from Mao to Xi. Beijing in 2020 decided to ignore the questions that Sen has queried, not solve them. 

On the other side stands the Korean model. This status has long been maintained by the U.S. but the western media doesn’t seem to have much faith on the Trump administration playing this role. Information is key for the Korean model. The transparency and the promptness of information is being praised globally. Information about confirmed individuals and his/her route of mobility is shared publicly. Disclosing private activities remains controversial with regards to rights protection or privacy, but this transparency of information policy is preventing public panic, which appears frequently in disasters. The foreign press reporting on the situation in Daegu, are startled by the composure shown by the people under these extraordinary conditions. 

The productivity of information is very high in the Korean model. Korea’s diagnostic skills were compared with that of the US at the House Oversight and Reform Committee Hearing. Representative Carolyn B. Maloney inquired, “South Korea has already tested almost 200,000 people. They can test 15,000 people a day. South Korea can test more people in one day than we tested over the past two months. Why are we so far behind Korea in testing and reporting this crisis?” Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi asked “Korea had tested 4,000 people for every million of its citizenry, and we are at 15 people for every million people in this country. When are we going to be reaching 15,000 people per day tested in this country?”

The Korean model maintains openness and maintains readiness in the risks to follow. Owing to the quality and volume of information, the preparedness can meet the level of managing the risks. We are yet to see whether this works better than the authoritarian model. We are yet to see how long this level of preparedness to manage the risks will last. This model, however, rivals the authoritarian model which intrinsically has the weaknesses in producing information. 

Can we declare victory for the democratic political system then? Probably too early to do so. In combating a pandemic disaster, a democracy faces a challenge that is completely different from that of an authoritarian system, but which is as thorny.

Professor Yee Jae-yeol at the Department of Sociology in Seoul National University specializes in sociology of disaster. Yee introduced the concept of ‘social quality’. When social quality is high, resilience to a crisis is high. Differences in resilience among the societies are due to differences in social quality. What is social quality?

“Social quality is high when the two poles of tension and balance are maintained. First, people need to have freedom but at the same time they must act collectively to solve collective problems. Moving radically towards the former disintegrates society and the latter leads to totalitarianism. Second, the institution and system need to be competent and play by the rules but at the same time they must possess openness and flexibility to adapt to changes in environment. Moving radically towards the former leads to nationalism and the latter leads to incompetence. Tension and balance in the sphere of the individuals and the institution must be retained to maintain the social quality.”

The China model is outstanding in collective action but lacks individual freedom. The institutions and systems are highly subject to the rules but lack openness and flexibility. China does not seek to maintain balance but abandons one of the poles that creates the dilemma and relies on the other. This makes it look as if the ability to solve the problem is high. This is not an option for a democratic political system because it has to deal with conflicting values of which none of them can be sacrificed. Hence, dilemma is inevitable for democratic governance.

The sense of communal unity before a moment of crisis

Korea devised a brilliant idea, the ‘drive-through’ test centers, where patients can get tested for the coronavirus in their own cars. This streamlines the hygienic procedures and minimizes human-to-human interactions, increasing the effects of preventing the chances of infection. Representative Carolyn Maloney asked in the US House hearing, “I really want to get to South Korea in their 50 mobile testing sites that they’ve set up where people can just drive up, get a quick swab, get a test and results in two days. Why haven’t we set up these mobile labs?” The local governments in Korea adopted the drive- through test centers on February 26. The private sector was even faster; it was Chilgok Kyungpook National University Medical Center that proposed the idea on February 23. Doctor Kim Jin-yong, the Head of Infectious Diseases at Incheon Medical Center, proposed the idea in a meeting of academic task force on COVID-19, participated by a professor at Chilgok Kyungbook University Medical Center which adopted it.

An idea from an expert in the field had led to an experiment in the private sector, and the government takes it and institutionalizes it. This is an epitome of how an open society operates when faced with disasters. Creativity from the private sector and bureaucratic capabilities blend in together to generate synergy. Ian Bremmer, the President of Eurasian Group tweeted with the photograph of Korea’s drive through, commenting that “innovation drives resilience”. If he were a sociologist in disaster, he would have commented “social quality drives resilience”.  

There is another dilemma. There are a set of codes of conduct that must be followed in an epidemic like maintaining personal hygiene, securing social distancing, refraining from joining crowded protests, wearing masks in public places, and self-quarantining. One individual adhering to these rules will not be effective; it will take the majority of members in an entire society to take effect. In other words, these are desirable group behaviors. Democratic governance can encourage citizens to take desirable actions, but cannot do so forcefully because this will infringe upon individual liberties. The government may ask churches to refrain from mass worships but cannot force them with public authority.

Rebecca Solnit is an American journalist and an activist. In her book “Hope in the Dark”, Solnit provides an insightful observation. Solnit says that disasters not necessarily triggers a sense of self-survival only. Surprisingly, people behave altruistically, taking care of each other. Solnit views that this is a universal behavior in human beings that she witnessed among people after 911 and Katrina.

Disaster allows survivors to feel a sense of communal unity. Charles Fritz, the pioneer of disaster sociology, explained that ‘as many people experience danger, loss and deprivation together, they grow a sense of solidarity and a willingness to help each other in full effort.’ They also realize that the goals of the individual and the group are intertwined, which leads to a sense of belonging and unity. Survivors become more friendly than usual and try to sympathize and help each other.

Times of crisis or a disaster seem to create both solidarity and selfish self-survival. An elder in Gwanak District, Seoul, who is also a recipient of basic livelihood security program, donated an envelope with a million won (equivalent to $800). He expressed gratitude for the people of the District Hall and the Residents’ Center who took care of him when he was self-quarantined. He left a memo on the envelope, “Thank you very much for saving a dying person. I am donating a small amount of money. Thank you so much”. Lee Soon-up, a recipient of basic livelihood security program, in Buk-gu, Busan, donated twenty hand-made masks to the Administration and Welfare Center. A teenage girl and a boy in Goyang City, Gyeonggi Province, donated 401,000 won (equivalent to $300) from their moneybox. The freshwater eel cooperative farm in Gwangju sent lunchboxes for the medical service workers in Daegu, worth 100 million won (about $80,000). As Daegu ran out of beds for patients, Gwangju reached out to provide spaces in hospitals in Gwangju. The list continues on. We want to be part of our community to take care of each other and to contribute. This sense of belonging makes us feel sense of heightened emotion which cannot be explained to a rational individual sort of person. There is a strong emotion that arises when we see the crew of Korean Airlines volunteering to go on the chartered flight to bring back Koreans from Wuhan or the medical staff that have volunteered to work in Daegu. This emotion is a heightened sense of unity.

This is good news. When faced with a disaster, there is a drive already inside of us to connect with each other and form solidarity inside of us. If we are able to bring this out, a democratic governance can surely generate desirable behaviors without infringing on individual liberties.

The task of the leader in a democratic governance facing a disaster crisis is clear. A disaster gives us a choice, to either chose solidarity or self-survival. The leader’s role is to lead the community not towards a vicious cycle of selfishness but desirable group behaviors. The leader does not have to use coercive power as exercised by President Xi. A leader should make use of the people’s willingness to help each other and feel a sense of connection and belonging. The role of the leader is to take care of the hearts of citizens.

This cannot be achieved with a mere consolation or a blurred optimism. As seen by the behavior of the citizens in Daegu who are voluntarily refraining themselves from moving about even without a lockdown of city, people are ready to take on a certain degree of discomfort and distress, and make sacrifices. U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill was appointed in 1940 during the Second World War. In his address before the House of Commons he stated, “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat”. A leader in a time of crisis is in the position to ask from the people dedication and sacrifice. 

That is not enough. A leader in time of crisis must be able to persuade the people that such dedication and sacrifice are as important as survival. Desirable group behaviors are much more likely to arise as there are more citizens that know what they are fighting against and sharing relevant values. Viktor Frankl was a psychologist and a Holocaust survivor. Frankl explains that there are commonalities among the survivors. A strong will to live was not enough. Those who survived were the ones that had a firm conviction of what the meaning of life is or what Frankl expressed as a strong “will to meaning.”

A leader in times of crisis or a provider of administrative service 

Great leaders in history showed definite differences in this regard. They did not ask mere sacrifices before a crisis in front of them. They were able to persuade the people that there were meaningful values that come out of a crisis. Abraham Lincoln was a leader in a time of crisis, taking office during the Civil War. In his famous Gettysburg address Lincoln started with the following statements: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” 

Lincoln did not state that winning the war is a way for survival. Lincoln connected the war with the value that “all men are created equal”. “It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.” The living and the dead are connected with a string of meaning. The address is historical because it boosts our emotion to connect with each other and seek for the meaning of our lives.

Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated as President in 1932. In order to protect the citizens from the economic crisis after the Great Depression, Roosevelt decided to adopt the principles of social protection. In 1941, Roosevelt proposed the value of “freedom from want”. In the face of an economic disaster, he gave meaning to the word “freedom” to provide policies to assist the poor. Back then, Americans were used to the idea of fighting for freedom as the world war had just ended. The people perceived the idea of protecting freedom as a noble fight against poverty similar to the fight against Hitler. Great leaders find meanings from crisis the disaster, or recreate them if there is none. They deeply understand that finding meaning is key to boost the morale of the citizens and encourage participation.

What happens when a leader in a time of crisis fails his mission? Experts in political science and democracy picked former President George W. Bush as an example. During his first year in office, President Bush had to face the 9·11 Terrorist Attack. After the tragedy, American citizens were ready to dedicate themselves in overcoming this crisis. The message that the president sent to his people was “go shopping”. This statement views the people not as citizens in a democracy ready to be involved in remedying the aftermath of the 911 terrorist attack, but rather as consumers that should be involved in preventing the downturn of the American economy. In “Downsizing Democracy”, the authors explain that “the nation’s defense was best left to professional administrators and soldiers, and ordinary folks should avoid getting in the way”.

In face of a disaster, the leader of democratic governance has two roles. First is the role of the leader dealing with the disaster. The leader asks for devotion and sacrifice, shares uncomfortable and dreadful news, plants meaning and values of sacrifice, boosts morality, and encourages desirable group behaviors. Second is the role of the administrative service provider. This role in a way is completely the opposite. The leader distances the people as far as possible from the disaster, protects the livelihood of people, and maintains stability.

No one would suspect President Moon Jae-in is not committed to responding to the current disaster. The question is whether President Moon is able to balance the role between the leader in times of crisis and that of the administrative service provider. As the people started to feel insecure after the outbreak of community transmission, Moon’s message on the coronavirus is focused on “providing masks”. There is no mention on any kind of task that will add meaning that will encourage sacrifice in this time of crisis. The message of administrative service provider prevails over that of the leader in crisis. The paradox emerges from here. If a leader does not ask for dedication and sacrifice, citizens will increasingly become consumers of administrative service. Americans summoned for a “war to protect freedom” and those asked for “shopping” would render different responses. If the first thing a leader does is mask security, then the citizens will evaluate the leader based on how well he provides these masks.

The outbreak of COVID-19 is more than just a fight against an epidemic. It is a fight to break away from the selfishness of self-survival, to safeguard values of sacrifice and unity, to stop stigmatizing a particular region and start enhancing the sense of belonging to the community, to show that the democratic system is more effective than an authoritarian one in times of disaster and crisis. The citizens are ready to take part in this fight, finding meaning in at least one or two of the above. It is a noble fight. But they need to be assured that it is a noble fight by a leader.  This will let them know that they are not alone, that fellow citizens also feel the obligation for such noble causes and they will be able to unify. A democratic system will not operate effectively without such emotions. This is particularly true when that democratic system is facing a time of disaster. 

translated by Hyeonjong Min
translation supervised by Beckhee Cho