Beyond a state of emergency

Have you ever stopped to consider what “the new norm” in the COVID pandemic could mean for your freedoms and your democracy that gives rise to them?

In the words of Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-Wen, “democracy is not just an election, it is our daily life” – a life that for Bahamians has been altered in ways that might not be easily reversed whenever the current state of emergency ends.

With emergency restrictions plunging workers and business owners into financial insecurity, many have been far more focused on how to make ends meet and how to stay safe from COVID, than on the extent to which their safety in a weakened democracy has been compromised.

While necessary focus has been placed on protecting the country’s healthcare system, and public health protocols focus on protecting the country from widespread COVID-19 outbreaks, protecting the democracy has not figured nearly as prominently as is necessary to safeguard the Bahamian people well beyond a COVID state of emergency.

In our July 2020 piece, “Emergencies and power”, and our November 2020 piece “Unholy war”, we focused on why a state of emergency in a democracy ought to exist for only the shortest possible time and advanced the position that a protracted suspension of constitutional rights and departure from normal parliamentary oversight, were not necessary to adequately respond to the ongoing pandemic.

A March 2021 United States Council on Foreign Relations discussion paper on COVID-19 and its effect on inequality and democracy, asserted that COVID-19 fosters democratic regression.

The paper, which published a study on five large democracies including the United States and India, stated, “Recent leaders of these large democracies, like many of their peers in the COVID-19 era, have used the pandemic to expand their executive power.

“… All five have attacked institutions such as independent judiciaries, bureaucracies, civil societies, electoral apparatuses, and the media. These governments have also often stepped up attacks on norms and institutions during the pandemic when civil society groups have had more trouble holding demonstrations and citizens are distracted by their own reasonable fears for their health and their families.

“These five large democracies are symbolic of larger trends, as the pandemic has caused democratic regression in much of the world. Yet these countries’ trajectories carry special weight regionally and internationally because they head some of the largest democracies in the world.”

Freedom House, a US independent watchdog organization founded in 1941, conducted research last year on 192 countries and surveyed 398 experts, journalists, civil society workers, and activists on the impact of COVID-19 on the global struggle for freedom.

The group concluded, “Since the coronavirus outbreak began, the condition of democracy and human rights has grown worse in 80 countries. Governments have responded by engaging in abuses of power, silencing their critics, and weakening or shuttering important institutions, often undermining the very systems of accountability needed to protect public health.

“The crisis of democratic governance, having begun long before the pandemic, is likely to continue after the health crisis recedes, as the laws and norms being put in place now will be difficult to reverse. Among the experts surveyed, 64 percent agreed that the impact of COVID-19 on democracy and human rights in their country of focus will be mostly negative over the next three to five years.”

We reiterate our view that The Bahamas’ management of COVID-19 at the executive level, could make it easier for future governments to play fast and loose with the rights of the Bahamian people.

Your rights, their wrongs

The Constitution of The Bahamas guarantees certain rights, but a large segment of the citizenry does not know or understand those rights, does not participate in the democracy beyond election day, and is unwilling to take a collective stand against violations of constitutional and statutory rights.

This dynamic, even before the country’s unprecedented state of emergency, made for a democracy far less vibrant than could otherwise exist.

With hands outstretched in a posture of a benevolent leader, the competent authority, Prime Minister Dr. Hubert Minnis has stood in Parliament on numerous occasions making announcements of changes to curfew and other restrictions.

In doing so, the prime minister has behaved as though he is gifting the Bahamian people with the ability to move about in their country, despite the fact that freedom of movement is their constitutional right.

There also exists a lingering narrative that the public should be grateful to the competent authority for giving back to them what, in fact, belongs to them.

This style of emergency management further weakens the democracy by consistently conveying to the citizenry, the idea that the only rights they are supposed to have are those a prime minister decides they should have at any given point in time.

The natural argument during an infectious disease outbreak is that individuals do not have the right to spread an infectious disease to others.

Indeed, the country’s Health Services Act empowers the chief medical officer to cause individuals suffering or suspected to be suffering from an infectious disease, to be isolated.

But one foundational criticism of lockdowns and similar orders in response to COVID-19 is that they restrict the freedom of movement of everyone in the population, whether or not they have or are suspected to have COVID-19.

One poses no danger to the public of spreading COVID if he or she does not have COVID.

Residents who have not been diagnosed with COVID-19 or are under no medical suspicion of being infected therewith, continue to be under the threat of hefty fines and a loss of their freedom to prison, for violations of various emergency orders that in numerous instances have nothing to do with reducing the risk of viral transmission.

One such order is the carrying of government-issued identification, which has been enforced via police roadblocks with officers carrying high-powered weapons as though we are in a police state, and as though a government ID can block COVID-19 transmission.

As for concerns about asymptomatic transmission, the government could have caused there to be a greater degree of surveillance had it made COVID-19 testing free, regardless of one’s symptoms or notice from contact tracing teams in public health.

And it would have caused the contact tracing system nationwide to be adequately resourced so that those who are confirmed or suspected to be infected with COVID-19 could be either isolated or quarantined, while the rest of the country continues to function without the constant threat of lockdowns, curfews, and other restrictions.

When the initial proclamation of emergency was issued, an emergency regulation governing the publication of false statements was drafted in such a way as to potentially imprison anyone accused of engaging in what the competent authority often refers to as “fake news”.

The opposition successfully argued against the wording of this regulation, given that the original wording left it open for abuse, and for the silencing of critics and of published concerns about the government and its handling of the pandemic.

That this regulation was drafted in such a way, to begin with, was a red flag regarding the government’s intentions during the state of emergency.

Different demographic, different democracy

One key way that inequalities were deepened over the past 16 months was in the issuance of emergency orders that, in effect, separated those who have access to and influence with the competent authority, from those who do not.

Such distinctions existed prior to the state of emergency, but when they result in the choosing of winners and losers in an atmosphere of suspended constitutional rights and economic crisis, the same can have a more damaging effect on society and democracy.

Exemptions to emergency orders issued by the competent authority allowed some business operators to enjoy liberties that others could not, impacting the viability of scores of competing businesses and their staff.

It allowed some to re-enter The Bahamas during a period of border closures, while all others suffered the indignity of having their constitutional right to return home violated for an extended period of time.

It allowed some to enjoy large weddings or other social gatherings, while others were subjected to heartbreak and financial loss over the postponement of nuptials, and other special or sacred occasions.

It allowed some to be free from testing for inter-island travel, while others bore the exorbitant cost thereof.

And the orders had the effect of categorizing classes of Bahamians as either essential or non-essential, with the unintended consequence of conveying an idea that some Bahamians ought to have a better opportunity to make ends meet in the pandemic than other Bahamians.

The Parliament and the pandemic

The Council on Foreign Relations’ paper pointed out that the extent of democratic regression in the countries studied, depended on the strength of their institutions.

As we have addressed on numerous occasions, the Parliament of The Bahamas – by virtue of the executive branch’s administrative control and the Cabinet being the largest voting bloc in the House of Assembly – is functionally weak in its role of holding government to account for its stewardship.

There was never going to be a reasonable chance of Parliament stopping the perpetual extension of states of emergency during this pandemic because the majority of votes in the House are held by the executive branch that votes as a bloc.

Under normal constitutional order, laws can only be passed by the consent of Parliament, which provides oversight of the legislative agenda of the Cabinet.

But so long as the pandemic continued to be managed via a state of emergency, Parliament had no oversight of the issuance of emergency laws by the competent authority, who has the sole authority to issue such laws as he sees fit.

This has led to controversy after controversy regarding the fairness and appropriateness of emergency orders, often issued arbitrarily and at times, issued to the surprise of members of Cabinet.

The Parliament has acted as little more than a rubber stamp for the wishes of the competent authority during the pandemic, and in so doing, has acted as a primary agent in a weakening of the country’s democracy since March of last year.

Vaccination and discrimination

When discrimination becomes an open policy promoted as being for the common good, it is a clear signal that democratic regression is not just a theoretical occurrence, but a very troubling reality.

Such is the case in the push to get more Bahamians vaccinated against COVID-19.

Both vaccinated and unvaccinated people can contract and spread COVID-19, such that the World Health Organization’s current guidance is that fully vaccinated individuals wear masks indoors, and practice social distancing.

Moreover, the safety of COVID vaccines still under clinical trials has not yet been proven, their long-term effects are unknown, and the length of immunity offered by the vaccines has not yet been established.

Yet, pronouncements by the competent authority as well as employer policies that punish or deprive individuals for choosing not to take the jab, seem to assume that the jabs are proven safe for all adults, are licensed and fully approved for use, are proven to stop transmission, and provide lifetime immunity.

Rather than engaging in widespread education, the path to promoting vaccination is coming in the form of discrimination.

An educational campaign incidentally, ought not to be confused with a promotional campaign.

A true educational campaign on COVID-19 vaccines brings to the fore all legitimate sides of the discussion, including global reports of serious temporal adverse reactions thereto, and investigations into the biodistribution of the vaccines and its potential links to serious adverse events.

One of the reasons vaccine hesitancy persists – and with it, public distrust – is that officials are branding anything that does not promote the narrative of COVID vaccination as conspiracy theories, fake news, or anti-vaxxer commentary.

The reality is that valid concerns exist within the scientific and medical community both locally and internationally – documented by renowned and accredited researchers and clinicians whose findings and positions are accessible online for Bahamians to see and digest.

Dismissing rather than adequately addressing the same, does little to move the bar in the direction of comfort with taking the jab.

As we have previously noted, vaccination is a medical decision, and no one ought to be pressured to undergo a medical intervention with which they are not comfortable, even if that intervention is fully approved for use.

With educational campaigns, some will decide to take the jab and others will not.

But what more Bahamians ought to awaken to is the danger of pronouncements or policies that promote barring individuals from being able to live freely in their country when that freedom has not been irrefutably demonstrated to present a clear and present danger to others.

COVID-19 has been a global trigger for democratic regression.

If we are lazy in our democracy here at home, where will that regression end?

The post Beyond a state of emergency appeared first on The Nassau Guardian.

source https://thenassauguardian.com/beyond-a-state-of-emergency/