Death by the Communist Party of China: A Case for Liberal Democracy

I would have titled this article “Death by China: A Case for Liberal Democracy” but because it is not right to blame all the Chinese people for the Corvid-19 mess the world is in and bearing in mind the stereotypes that could bring, I have put the blame where it is supposed to be and that is with the leadership of the state. According to Wikipedia, the Communist Party of China (CPC) is the founding and ruling political party of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the second largest political party in the world. The CPC is the sole governing party within mainland China.

The Corona virus which was given the name Covid-19 by scientists is said to have originated from Wuhan, a prosperous capital of China’s Hubei province although there have been calls not to refer to it as ‘Wuhan’ or ‘Chinese’ virus to avoid stigmatization. Wuhan has an animal market which is suspected to be the origin of the virus. The virus has symptoms like high fever, dry cough and difficulties in breathing and mostly affected or killed those of older age, those with low immunity or pre-existing conditions. Initially China and the World Health Organization downplayed the seriousness of the virus with the latter taking time to declare it a pandemic leaving many states unprepared including the developed nations hence as it is over 300,000 lives have been lost globally with over 6 million infections and still counting.

The virus has come with serious political implications both locally and internationally. There was anger in China over what was believed to be a cover up considering the medics who issued early warnings were reprimanded for spreading propaganda which calls into question realist thinking that states are actually rational actors-this turned out to be a bad decision. At the international level, the United States President Donald Trump has referred to WHO as ‘china-centric’ blaming the institution for helping China cover up the true impact of the virus as well as not properly preparing them for this calamity yet the US is its major funder. As it is Trump has announced termination of relationship with the WHO. This power play politics tends to justify realist position that great powers use international institutions for their own interest and to show case their might. Again we are seeing states as the major actors issuing decisions like closing borders, lock down, social distancing and enforcing other health guidelines. On the other hand, liberal ideas of complex interdependence are at play with countries depending on each other for medical supplies and medics, global trade has not been completely shuttered since there is movement of goods even where borders have been closed to the masses, multilateral institutions like the World Bank and IMF are being asked to bail out struggling economies, WHO is still giving guidelines to the states on how to deal with the virus and now the world is not discussing military issues but health issues as a top agenda.

With all the above going on, as students of International Relations at USIU-Africa, we could not avoid discussing which political system was handling the virus best and as expected the success of China earned her a lot of praise. To my dismay, some classmates even tried to justify the fake news that China had plans to execute those who had the virus in order to stop the spread terming it a necessary realist move. Authoritarianism is a form of governance characterized by strong central power, limited political freedoms and lack of concern for the opinions of others whereas liberal democracy is a system of democratic governance whereby individual rights and freedoms are officially recognized and protected. In addition to that, exercise of political power in a democracy is limited by the rule of law. Despite the fact that China’s authoritarian political system covered up the true extent of the pandemic, their measures have been seen to be effective in combating the virus. They started with a lock down and this has been replicated in other countries like Uganda, Rwanda, France and Italy with good success although for France and Italy they have faced challenges of human rights and freedom as any other democratic state would but it has come at a price. When it comes to China, state authority over ride human rights or personal freedoms hence they were effective in taming the spread of the virus outside and within Wuhan. They quickly mobilized resources, building hospitals within days and forcefully taking people for testing as well as supplying food to those held up in their houses as a result of the lockdown. Nevertheless, there are doubts about the numbers authoritarian states like China or Russia are giving considering a history of cover ups by such systems. It is also difficult to believe that North Korea has not registered any single corona virus case.

Meanwhile, liberal democracies have been ravaged by the virus except Angela Merkel’s Germany which seemed to be more prepared than the rest. It has also brought in another debate that women leaders are more effective than men in handling the pandemic. Germany has recorded low death rates, high recovery and testing rates, going to the extent of taking in patients from France and Italy. Another democracy that has been effective is New Zealand which is also led by a woman. For liberal democracies, the belief in the leader has been helpful as people honor instructions issued at the top which has not been an issue for Merkel because she enjoys high approval ratings. The country quickly developed testing kits whereas the rest were waiting for supplies from China whose initial deliveries were criticized for being erratic. Germany is said to be close to developing a vaccine for the virus.

However, what I believe is that instead of having discussions about which political system is doing better in handling the pandemic, we need to remember that it is authoritarianism that got us here in the first place. The freedoms enjoyed in liberal democracies would have made cover up of the impact of early infections impossible and even the jailing or silencing of whistle blowers like Li Wenliang who eventually succumbed to the disease would have been a long shot. The world is paying a heavy price because a given state cannot afford to allow and protect freedom of speech. 

The long-term implication is that there will be serious changes in terms of how we view politics in that actions within a state can have global impact, there are already discussions of how to make international institutions more effective especially the WHO and when it comes to trade, liberal democracies are starting to question their over reliance on China for manufactured goods. Already Japan has set aside 2 billion US dollars to reduce their production supply chain in China and there are discussions to move manufacturing to more democratic states like Taiwan, Malaysia or even Vietnam.  China has tried soft power diplomacy by sharing their success, sending medics and medical supplies but this has been undercut by the likes of Taiwan and Vietnam, worse still by the racial profiling of Africans in China on top of exporting faulty testing kits and ventilators. There are suggestions to use digital technology so that those with immunity or not infected can be identified in efforts to reopen economies which have been grossly damaged with fears of a looming global recession not going away. All in all, this corvid-19 crisis is a reminder that we need more of our freedoms which can only be guaranteed under liberal democracy and that there is a global price to pay for authoritarianism.