Placing Politics ahead of Science: The Story of the COVID-19 Global Spread
In transforming to a full-blown pandemic, COVID-19 has fully took advantage of the the politically motivated initial behavior of states. China repressively silenced the initial whistleblowers. Iranian clergy assertively denounced alarms as conspiratorial. The European Union and its member states were competing to deal with the prevailing crisis based on their respective ideological assumptions. And in the United States, the administration’s behavior was characterized by cynicism about the seriousness of the situation. The political milieu in which COVID-19 has transformed into a pandemic reveal a unique pattern of political behavior towards the disease. A behavior that is driven by political agenda and is characterized by a bias towards science-based approaches.
This pattern of behavior is neither novel nor is it in the margins. Quite the opposite, it has been on display in the mainstream towards different challenges of the contemporary world, including the climate and sustainability crises. However, what is unique is that in the face of COVID-19 and its aggressive spread, the narratives and rhetoric that drove states’ initial behavior have proven unsubstantiated and counterproductive. Though, with enormous consequences.
Starting with China, where the disease reportedly originated. Its spread challenged both regime’s controlling behavior and its narrative of impeccability of the system. This narrative provides a foundation for an unquestionable faith in the system that requires complete obedience and conformity. Hence, whatever is observed as puzzling and that questions the assumed flawless nature of the system should be either an error of the observatory tool or the mistake or ill-intention of the observer, though, not the error or abrasion of the system.
This is what has reportedly happened with the late Dr. Wenliang, an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital, who raised alarm after observing puzzling evidence of patients with SARS-like symptoms. In a dynamic and autonomous scientific setting, such puzzling observations serve as the first steps towards a more robust and systematic inquiry, which may lead to either a new discovery or, at least, to an alternative explanation to solve the puzzle. Dr. Wenliang’s alarm, though, did not initiate such a scientific inquiry. On the contrary, it landed him in a criminal inquiry. His alarm was taken as illegal and impertinence to the system. He was officially accused of spreading “false news,” thereby causing social disturbances.
For the regime, in the face of a limited number of perplexing observations, Dr. Wenliang was not supposed to question the flawlessness of the state machinery that runs this emerging global powerhouse. By the day of his death on February 7th due to COVID-19, the disease had already trembled the ideological and administrative tenets of the Chinese state and the ripples had started shaking regions near and far.
By suppressing the initial alarms, the Chinese regime failed to contain the disease in its earlier stages, which subsequently caused the pandemic. This inevitably subjects that Chinese regime to own the unavoidable responsibility of attempting to obscure and distort science-based information about the inception of the disease.
Outside of China, one of the main epicenters of COVID-19 emerged in the Iranian city of Qom by the 3rd week of February. The city is the intellectual, celestial, and ideological center of Shi’a Islam that is home to some sacred shrines visited by millions of Shi’a Muslim pilgrims from around the world. The regime’s clergy has strong political and spiritual affiliations with the city. By mid-February, alarms were raised about the possible spread of the disease in Iran, mainly in its holy city.
The ruling clergy in their sermons, however, assertively denounced the alarms as conspiracy cooked by global Zionists to sabotage legitimacy of the regime by disrupting the parliamentary elections scheduled on February 21st. The clergy did not stop there but rather encouraged people to counteract the conspiracy by showing political commitment and religious fervor by participating in elections and visiting the sacred sites. The extreme form of popular disregard to the disease alarm emerged in a social media campaign by the pilgrims in kissing and licking the fence and walls of the shrines in Qom. The regime’s paranoia put the well-being of its people secondary to its political and religious agendas.
The result of this behavior by the regime and its affiliated clergy is the mass graves of the victims of the disease, bodies of the deceased wrapped in tarps and plastic covers, and patients lying down on the roads and yards of health facilities gasping their last breaths. This human face of the disease more than any other political, economic, or military crisis the regime has ever faced, is questioning the moral grounds of the regime and its ruling clergy.
The rapid spread of the virus in China and the region has given the developed world — Europe and the United States — clues for the need to move ahead of the disease. However, their ideological convictions got the best of their capacities in dealing with the prevailing situation.
The initial response of the European countries to the crisis was shadowed by a struggle between the competing ideologies. At one end was the narrative of common ideals and values, and hence, a collective responsibility and approach. On the competing end was the nationalist rhetoric that urges individual governments towards domestic obligations and national interests. This struggle has left the decision-making processes of the institutions with either national or regional mandate in a state of confusion and indecisiveness. Eventually, none of the approaches, either at the union or at national levels, could curb the spread of the disease.
For example, Italy did impose travel restrictions from China earlier than the U.S. However, other European countries and the EU did not impose restriction. The open borders between EU nations created a situation for Italy which reflected that of a locked door without walls. In addition, the call for help by Italy landed on deaf ears of other nations in the Union. Instead of taking tough and firm decisions informed by emerging data and science-based information from China and other Asian countries, the EU and its’ members countries relied on juggling and balancing between regional and national policies and ideological lines.
Similarly, the response to the crisis in the United States has been stained by both the right and the left. Although the left political establishment has been trying to align its approach along scientific lines, they could not restrain from politics in certain cases. For example, the active or passive opposition of some circles within the democratic party to the Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin treatment combination seems more politically driven than scientifically substantiated. The combination has been tested in China, South Korea, France, and even in New York with some promising results. However, as it was initially touted by President Trump, this is enough of a reason to denounce the treatment regimen. Trump should not gain any credit as it will heavily be used for his re-election campaign.
The initial response of the Trump administration to the spread of the virus in China was to initiate travel restrictions from China. It sounds like an appropriate measure, but it was inadequate and ill-intentioned. While Trump persistently declined acknowledging the seriousness of the prevailing global crisis, the travel restriction from China was more the continuation of the administration’s trade war with China, but by other means. Except for this measure, the administration did not facilitate any other initiative aimed at containing the spread of COVID-19 in the country. On the contrary, the President’s cynicism about the emerging situation has caused lost preventive and containing opportunities.
The question however is, why such complacency? Two narratives adopted by the administration for political millage and campaign purposes drove the initial denial. First is a political narrative of speculating about the economy and avoiding any situation that could potentially distort the market. Second, a systematic bias towards science and facts. In the contemporary U.S. political milieu, this orientation has been adopted by right political ideology that initially emerged to counter the emerging robust climate-related scientific knowledge. Those, who adopted this orientation looks at science-based information as the political rhetoric of the left. When COVID-19 was spreading around and beyond China, this orientation was clearly and loudly put on display by the right wing political and media pundits in the U.S. to discredit the emerging though crucial data and evidence.
Due to this bias, president Trump during the COVID-19 crisis has persistently placed politics and political narratives ahead of science by ignoring and contradicting the recommendations and alarms of the relevant scientific and epistemic communities. The inconsistencies, incompetence, and complacency displayed not only undermine the authority and autonomy of science-based institutions but are also counterproductive for public trust on these institutions and on science-based knowledge.
The problem, however, is neither in the science nor in these scientific institutions, but in such a political behavior that places politics above science. COVID-19 is not a slow-moving disaster like climate change, able to give yet another day for biased political narratives to thrive and survive. Conversely, through its rapid spread, the disease reveals the tremendous costs of inaction or unscientific approaches towards the disease.
COVID-19 changed the world in a matter of a couple of months. In addition to other potential factors including the still largely unknown pathogenesis and the natural history of the disease, the states’ initial disregard to science and science-based approaches compromised their capacities in dealing with crisis. They tried controlling the narrative and shape the approaching catastrophe based on their political convictions and ideological beliefs. Such an approach in the face of the acute and aggressively spreading disease proved incapable of preventing or containing the crisis. On top, it backfired and gave the disease enough time and space to transform into a full-blown pandemic.
The fundamental question remains: will this drastic change induced by the COVID-19 global crisis be a lesson for humanity to let science lead the way in navigating the dark waters of the looming crises of the Anthropocene? Or will humanity continue to let its constructed narratives, untested assumptions, ideological beliefs, and empty political rhetoric to facilitate paths for looming disasters and shocks?
