‘Temporary’ crisis measures could long outlast the virus

Unless we make the case for freedom, new state powers could become the norm.

Barbara Kolm

The first month of the massive coronavirus lockdowns all around the world has passed. In my home country of Austria, the first infection was recorded in late February. A few days later, on 10 March, the first major constraints on public life were introduced.

As in the case with most other countries affected by Covid-19, restaurants, shopping areas, cinemas, churches, and most places where people can gather have been forced to close. Meetings of more than five people are prohibited. Non-essential activities outside have been banned. The list of activities deemed essential doesn’t extend much beyond buying groceries and walking the dog. Since the beginning of the month, everyone has been forced to wear face masks in supermarkets. Some of these restrictions will be eased after Easter, however.

Needless to say, in times of such great crisis, such measures can be necessary, no matter how unacceptable they would be in normal times in democratic societies. Around the world, tens of thousands have died and over a million have been infected by the virus – with the potential of it spreading rapidly without strict social distancing. Measures are needed to protect the elderly, who are particularly at risk, and to prevent the breakdown of healthcare systems. This is an unprecedented crisis in our modern world, and so temporary, unprecedented policies may be viable.

However, it often is the case that such temporary unprecedented policies do not stay temporary. ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste’, the famous saying goes. The coronavirus chaos will undoubtedly be used by politicians to further their interests, to expand government powers and increase the size of the state indefinitely. This is more often the case than not. Politicians may promise that the measures will be abolished when the precarious situation is over, but aspects of the new measures always tend to stay.

Take 9/11 as an example, after which previously unimaginable security procedures at airports were introduced and continue to be in place to this day. Through measures such as the US Patriot Act, democratic countries massively expanded the surveillance of their people, often overriding constitutional norms, and this has not gone away.

Another prime example is Germany’s so-called solidarity tax, which was introduced in 1991 as a tax on West Germans to redistribute money to the newly liberated but economically ravaged East. It was a noble idea at the time. Politicians promised it would be in place for just a few years, and yet it exists to this day, 30 years later.

These precedents should make us nervous when looking at the situation today, as we have provided governments around the world with powers that are usually incompatible with free and democratic nations. We can already see in the case of countries like Hungary how governments are using the crisis as a good excuse to further their interests. Prime minister Viktor Orbán has been clamping down on the liberal democratic institutions in his country for a long time. But now he can do so much more assertively.

Much of our everyday lives will return to normal sooner or later. The Austrian government, for instance, has announced its timetable for lifting its most severe quarantine restrictions. Other countries will no doubt follow soon. But our leaders will find some of the new measures useful and will be reluctant to hand back all of our civil liberties.

Demands for a ‘bio-surveillance state’ have already arisen. Austrian telecommunications company A1 has handed over data from its customers to the Austrian government so that the state can track people’s locations. Similar procedures have been introduced in other countries. In the north of Italy, the government is collecting data to see how many people are moving more than 500 metres a day. In Belgium and the UK, drones have been flown over city parks and natural landscapes to order people to stop staying outside for too long – an idea which was ridiculed by Westerners when implemented in China just a few weeks ago.

Governments across the world are learning how to better use new technologies to monitor their populations – and can do so with some legitimacy when responding to the crisis. It is unlikely we will reach the levels of intrusion experienced in China, where technologies around ‘smart cities’ have been key to implementing its modern gulag system. But whatever surveillance powers states hand themselves, they will be hard to renounce when normal life returns.

We need to have a real conversation post-coronavirus over the role of the state in society – and not just about the new powers governments have accrued during this crisis. We also need to consider how powerful and centralised states had become before the crisis, too.

In March, the French president Emmanuel Macron said that ‘the nation will support its children’. But when the coronavirus passes into history, we cannot let ever more paternalism, nannyism and monitoring by the government become the norm. After corona, freedom must reign instead.

Barbara Kolm is president of the Friedrich A. v. Hayek Institute in Vienna and director of the Austrian Economics Center. She is also the vice president of the Austrian National Bank (OeNB).

Picture by: Getty.

Let’s cancel cancel culture

Free speech is under attack from all sides – from illiberal laws, from a stifling climate of conformity, and from a powerful, prevailing fear of being outed as a heretic online, in the workplace, or even among friends, for uttering a dissenting thought. This is why we at spiked are stepping up our fight for speech, expanding our output and remaking the case for this most foundational liberty. But to do that we need your help. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you want to support us, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can find out more and sign up here. Thank you! And keep speaking freely.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

vera Newman

16th April 2020 at 11:31 am

Thousand Of the Peoples are Died From Corona Virus…On The Other Hand Thousand Peoples Are Died By Poorness Its Means Poorness is More Dangerous As Compare to Corona Virus…… Read more

Linda Payne

16th April 2020 at 6:00 am

It is worth keeping an eye on Sweden who are relatively liberal compared to the rest of Europe. In the UK we are constantly being told that the lockdown ‘is saving lives’ as if stopping the country and curtailing our civil liberties is worth it. The death rates from corona may seem alarming when totalled up but when you consider that we have 66 million people in the UK, statistically it is a very small number sad as each one is, we must keep this in mind

Ed Turnbull

16th April 2020 at 11:30 am

Linda, the C-19 death *rate* is alarming at all, not when compared with other respiratory infections (such as the flu) that regularly scythe through the elderly and vulnerable. But the *numbers* are being made to appear alarming by an irresponsible and mendacious media.

There are three parties that are accountable for the current snafu: the media for breathlessly scaremongering, the public for being terrified into the thinking the Angel of Death was coming for them all and who squealed that ‘something must be done’, and the bumbling and spineless politicians who lacked the testicular and intestinal fortitude to be the adults in the room, and who acceded to the anguished wails from the media and the people.

As one who was not squealing for the government to save us all from the frightful beastie from the east that was coming to eat us all up, I feel I can say, hand on heart, that the current screw up was none of my doing.

I agree that people must keep the current number of C-19 deaths in perspective, but that’s unlikely to happen. We have in this country vast numbers who – for various reasons – think that the state can gift them immortality. For these kidults death is something that only happens in the movies or video games, and if only they surrender themselves into the stern arms of Nanny State then the man with the scythe won’t ever get them, and all will be well. After all liberty’s pretty overrated isn’t it? Some people even use it to – Heaven forfend! – write hurtful (but true) things on social media.

Ed Turnbull

16th April 2020 at 11:31 am

Typo: there’s a ‘not’ missing from the first sentence of that comment.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.

Deplorables — a spiked film