Are Covid lockdowns dictatorships by stealth?

Commentators have been quick to point at the ability of authoritarian regimes, such as China's, to tackle the virus and even eliminate it. Under this narrative, the measures needed are so restrictive of personal freedoms that to adopt them signifies abandonment of our cherished democratic rights. Demonstrations have occurred in the United States against lockdown measures on the grounds that they would somehow represent the victory of the Chinese Communist Party.

Certainly, there can be little doubt that significant curtailments of individual freedoms have taken place in democratic countries. For example, Australian citizens are currently forbidden from leaving that country without first applying for permission. This is reminiscent of what took place in the former East Germany and other Eastern bloc nations, where one needed an exit visa in order to leave.

There is, however, an important difference here. The rules adopted in Australia and elsewhere are for a specific confined purpose and, assuming a vaccine is eventually found, not of a permanent nature. Likewise, in New Zealand all returnees are confined under guard in Government quarantining facilities and the relatively few community cases that have occurred are also now confined in such facilities or at home under strict surveillance.

These measures have proved so far to be highly successful. They do not in any measure represent abandonment of democratic values: the converse is indeed the case as a General Election is shortly to take place which, provides the public a ready mechanism to punish or reward the Government for its actions.

What explains New Zealand and Australia's success in tackling the pandemic? Instead of democracy versus dictatorship a contrary narrative is the lack of humility by Western nations in learning from developing countries, who they are more accustomed to lecturing about their failures in matters such as upholding human rights. Under this narrative, it was simply inconceivable to believe that many of these countries had been able to adopt effective measures to address the pandemic that were also compatible with democratic norms.

Some did learn, however. For instance, New Zealand quickly learned from China of the effectiveness of regional and national lockdowns. But it also learned from democratic Taiwan about the importance of contact-tracing and the need to follow up those infected.

These lessons were quickly implemented. In turn, Australia learned from New Zealand and each learned from mistakes made by the other.

In both Australia and New Zealand, elected leaders were able to persuade most of their citizens to act responsibly.

Legal sanctions tended to be the exception. This is the ultimate test of leadership: the ability to take one's population along. This required leaders to be consistent as to the peril and focus on what ultimately mattered most: life and health over property and profits. Many failed the test.

The ultimate strength of democracies, however, is that failed leaders can be removed. In addition, abuses of powers can be tested, as seen in a recent New Zealand case challenging the legality of the first lockdown instructions.

The High Court ruled the requirement to stay at home was not, for the first nine days, prescribed by law and so was in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, although it declared the requirement was, otherwise, a necessary, reasonable, and proportionate response to the Covid-19 crisis at the time.

The choice between democracy and authoritarianism is a fool's choice: Australia and New Zealand have shown that democracies can be just as successful as the most autocratic regimes in combating Covid-19.