It has now been a few months since the pandemic hit us and the world changed overnight, it’s time now to start making initial assessments as we, as populations, have been profoundly affected. Lung diseases, death of relatives, deprivation of fundamental freedoms and loss of employment are all legitimate reasons to ask questions. More so since, after an initial deconfinement, Covid-19 cases are starting to climb again in a certain number of countries: it seems, for now at least that we must learn to live and cope with it.
Also, it is a time for vehemence. What some believe to be a poor management of the crisis has, for example, pushed a group of Spanish demonstrators to demand the resignation of the government, while their neighbors in France have registered 71 complaints against their leaders. This is all against the backdrop of a latent social crisis (yellow jackets, pension reform, anti-racist demonstrations…). At a geopolitical level, the Covid-19 pandemic has also revealed strong mistrust and tensions. A “low-intensity” war that is being played out on cyber terrain.
By its very nature, this crisis will have transcended political oppositions and partisan antagonisms. But while it is legitimate to punish failure and shortcomings, we must be wary of going too far by overzealous questioning. If our leaders benefit from a certain amount of political credit, it is precisely to steer the destiny of our nations over the long term and beyond the vicissitudes. To question this principle would be to run a great risk because, more than ever before, this crisis requires us to remain united on a twofold scale, nationally and internationally.
Even though Asian flu phenomena have been known about for decades, and military programming laws have been able to integrate the pandemic risk into their assumptions, governments have recently had priorities to manage, in a very tight budgetary environment.
Part of public opinion seems to remain deaf to this. Thus, a poll conducted in France by Odoxa for Le Figaro newspaper on last 5 & 6 May indicated that only 34% of those polled were in favor of their government’s action during the Covid-19 crisis (compared to 75% for mayors and 69% for their employers). It is at this level of governance that one should be particularly vigilant, knowing that the other levels, especially the supranational ones, seem to escape this “accountability” to a greater extent.
So yes, naming a guilty party is part of the political and democratic game. A purge inevitably occurs, as if to exorcise a painful past, and one can organize all the hearings and trials one wants to calm popular vindictiveness. Except that to continue in this way widens the gap between the people and their representatives where they should be one and it further disintegrates our societies.
Isn’t it more constructive to learn from our collective failures? and to dare trust, and to prepare ourselves so that the next crises (which are bound to come in health, political, religious or economic forms) are simply better understood?
And there is no shortage of areas for improvement, even if the approach remains bilateral and citizens must just as much, to paraphrase John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s famous inaugural speech, ask themselves what they could do for their country:
– Pedagogy: Governments are having to make more and more complex and impactful decisions. For these to be received as intelligible and fair, they need to continue communicating better and explaining their actions in a clear, concise way. The management of the Covid-19 Pandemic was a striking illustration of this, during which our leader became more accustomed to raising our awareness, on a more regular basis. For our part, as citizens, we are becoming better and better informed. We want to be able to form our own opinions on a growing number of subjects, particularly those that will have a direct impact on our health and safety, so that we can better participate and fully play our role as citizens. While it is ultimately up to us to learn how to be well informed, this cannot happen without a certain capacity to discern what is true and what is false, and thus to neutralize the dreaded fake news.
– Confidence: It implies that leaders tell the truth, except for maybe a few areas where they need some leeway to preserve national security or the vital interests of the nation. Transparency is a condition for trust, and maintains but above all perpetuates the involvement of the people in the system, since it is they who actually mandate public leaders to act and administer in their name and in the best general interest;
– Participation: Opportunities for regular sharing between governments and people have complemented our institutional landscapes. On the one hand, as populations, we must aspire to sincerity and participate in the public arena, and in any case not to neglect it, so vital is it to take care of it. On the other hand, public authorities will benefit from continuing to rely on privileged and secure interactions.
– Solidarity: The pandemic will have been an opportunity for unprecedented mutual aid between states, but also between the different components of social bodies and between individuals; a precious solidarity which often made the difference, and which, without being null and void, will have to be part of the elements “that we keep”;
– Responsibility: At the forefront of the fight against the pandemic, the involvement and courage of the caregivers have not failed to be praised. It is also everyone who, through his or her individual sense of responsibility, has been able to and will continue to make a difference. An individual responsibility which remains valid for the Covid-19 as well as for the behavior on social networks or for all the crises which are yet to come.
