The coronavirus is brutal, but egalitarian

Dr N. Janardhan

The impact of any one economy on the global system was attributed to France or Britain in the 19th century and the United States in the 20th.It assumed an Asian tone in the 21stcentury with the “If China sneezes, the world catches a cold” reference!

Well, it is more than just a cold in the current context. It is COVID-19 or the coronavirus!

As the virus wreaked havoc in China and spread through the Middle East to Europe and beyond over the last few months, the pandemic’s trail invokes an uncanny déjà vu from the 14th century. The Black Death or Great Plague originated in China in the 1330s and travelled along the ancient Silk Road through present-day Iran and inflicted mayhem in Europe via the Italian peninsula until the 1350s.

It is estimated that between 75 and 200 million people succumbed to the epidemic. Given the modern advances in the medical, technological and information dissemination arenas, the devastation to human lives may be relatively minuscule this time. But there are other reasons – socio-economic, political and international – that could make COVID-19 just as legendary.

First,  a social perspective. I have never been a great fan of pop music, not least that of Madonna. But for once, my thoughts about coronavirus resonate with her calling it “the great equaliser” because it does not discriminate. “That’s the thing about Covid-19…It doesn’t care about how rich you are, how famous you are, how funny you are, how smart you are, where you live, how old you are, what amazing stories you can tell…what’s terrible about it is that it’s made us all equal in many ways – and what’s wonderful about it is that it’s made us all equal in many ways.”

Politicians, celebrity actors and sports stars – everybody’s life around the world has been upended. Like an ‘equal opportunity employer’, it is a largely non-discriminatory virus. The last few months have increasingly been a shocking reminder that all human beings are vulnerable. Yes, some feel the impact more than others, but no one is immune.

Second, translating this into a political context, this egalitarian characteristic of the coronavirus has achieved what most democracies have failed – equitable treatment of people.

The countermeasures have been equally egalitarian. After critical reviews of state-enforced lockdowns in China, the rest of the world, including the ‘liberal’ West has been forced to adopt the same ‘nanny’ state measures. Despite being uncomfortable about restricting personal liberties, Western countries have imposed the most stringent social restrictions on their public since the end of World War II.

Third, from an international perspective, the goings-on have given a glimpse of the reshaping of the global leadership in the 21st century. After taking the brunt of criticism for being the source of the virus, China has quickly got its act together and started sending medical support and supplies to a host of countries, including some in the West, as part of ‘Silk Road of Health’, which complements the Belt and Road Initiative, the modern-day Silk Road.

Apart from offering a public relations opportunity to reclaim some of the lost ground, this also helps China showcase its leadership role in times of crises, which was formerly the preserve of the Western countries. With most of these countries lacking adequate resources or getting bogged down by their domestic burden –like the United States getting only Americans off a cruise in Japan – China is reaching out to the world.

Fourth, a combination of these perspectives is also reflective of the discussion of ideas involving globalisation and deglobalisation or global solidarity and nationalist isolation.

The spread of the virus could be compared to the idea of a world without boundaries or globalisation. Inversely, the countermeasure of border shutdowns reflects deglobalisation. While this is a necessary temporary step on the road to recovery, it would be a pity if the newfound Western enthusiasm for protectionism and deglobalisation in the larger context of the global economy gets the better of Asian push for open trade borders and globalisation.

No country can beat coronavirus alone, just as no global ill can be tackled individually. Collective action is the way forward.

Finally, how will we remember this virus in future? Will it be etched in our memories more for the lockdowns, emanating from the fear of death, than for the actual number of deaths? Or will it remain a part of us for our newfound lives involving remote work, virtual learning, do-it-yourself (without domestic helps), uncertainties, insecurities, helplessness, introspection and recalibration of modern life’s rat race, materialism and warped priorities, as well as the irrelevance of artificial intelligence at times of crises? Or will it serve as wake-up call against unsustainable lifestyles and selfishness and promote a feeling of charity and compassion more than before?

Any of the above is welcome. It would be regrettable if our memory is fleeting and if we move from one crisis to the next, without any impact – like it is with news of current affairs or jokes on the social media, which is often forgotten the following day!