Elections and Epidemics

I recently returned to Berlin, Germany from Washington D.C. Both cities are currently in election fever – the US with the 2020 Presidential election, and Berlin to (again) decide on who will succeed Chancellor Merkel as party leader.

As a political scientist, elections are political junkie time. Elections can transform entire policy systems (if not political ones), and are a test of societies. Debates and policy positions also get debated more heatedly during election periods, as do identities and values. What are we prioritizing? What do we stand for? What are we ready to invest (our taxpayer money) in?

Working in global health, I am seeing a similar “junkie period” around the Coronavirus (Covid-19) epidemic. The epidemic is bringing fore debates (in media, among policy makers, also among technical experts and academics) that usual simmer somewhere in academic publications or specialist discussions. The epidemic is proving to be extremely polarizing (ranging from the ultimate extremes of Armageddon-fearmongering to Trump’s “hoax” announcement). Somewhere in between, there are factual but also polarized debates on whether we should invest (significant) funds into research, vaccines, healthworkers, multilaterals – or (ideally) all of the above.

Most importantly, the epidemic (or pandemic) is a test of our systems. Is our health system able to care for ill patients – as well as other acute health needs? Do we have enough health workers, and enough equipment to diagnose, protect and treat? Do we have trustworthy communication systems in place to ensure that the general public (and infected or at-risk populations) follow guidance? Have we over the past years prioritized the right areas, or fully neglected health systems and multilateral organizations – also in other countries, or to tackle diseases that jump across national or regional borders?

As with elections, in a period of epidemic it is easy to get caught up in the frenzy. Social media channels and traditional media suddenly only focus on this one single issue, and our clicking further narrows our intake and perspective. We begin to focus on a narrower and more specific set of issues – or even personalities, and forget to take a step back to look at the bigger picture.

We also risk over-saturating, getting bored, and losing interest. This seems to be happening in German media with Covid-19, where following two weeks of frontpage coverage and online feeds filled with dozens of articles, there is now a “click here for Coronavirus coverage” section, moving further towards the end with each day. This is dangerous in times where the epidemic is only beginning to spread, and the general public should be kept informed. But sadly, it has happened frequently before: just think of Ebola, or humanitarian and refugee crises – all which continue, but out of sight (and often mind).

Most political junkies know the post-election fatigue. Once the government has been formed and key positions filled, it’s time to take a break. With epidemics, it is dangerous if this post-epidemic fatigue kicks in before the epidemic is over. Constant vigilance – among the entire population – is critical to ensure an epidemic can be contained, and does not re-emerge if not fully over. Very simply put, it’s not over until it’s over.

In both the US and Germany, the current Coronavirus epidemic also brings to the fore how elections and epidemics can be linked. In the US, the Administration is downplaying the risks, putting on a (risky) image of strength and preparedness for any crisis. In Germany, the currently Health Minister is part of a candidacy team to replace the Chancellor as party head. So far, he has handled the response factually, rapidly and without fearmongering. But media has already reported that the epidemic is not only a test for his skill in handling the crisis, but succeeding in his leadership ambitions. In some sense, as long as leadership is addressing the crisis and investing in preparedness and strengthening health systems sustainably, this question should be irrelevant.

Most important in this period of frenzy (and our junkie tendencies in these election and epidemic periods) is not to forget other daily crises that continue to happen. People continue to have other health crises, and need medicines, vaccines, operations, midwives, emergency care – and general acute or long-term care. Are our systems – in this case health systems and multilateral organizations – strong enough to handle this double burden in a period of an epidemic outbreak?

We should be asking these questions, just as we as political scientists ask whether our political system and (check-and-balance) set-up is strong enough to handle any election outcome.