MARK BEESON. What’s at stake in the Coronavirus crisis?

The Coronavirus is causing a political crisis as well as the more obvious medical variety. Some governments may not recover.

Spare a thought for Xi Jinping. Just when it looked as if he’d cemented his place at the top, along comes a crisis that threatens to upend him.

The big problem with centralising power and becoming ‘chairman of everything’ is that when things go wrong there’s really no one else to blame. Not that this has stopped him or the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party from trying, of course. Responsibility for the Coronavirus epidemic has been shifted to local officials in Wuhan, but this has not stopped an emerging crisis of confidence in China’s leaders from gaining momentum on social media.

Whatever else the present health scare is doing it’s shining a powerful light on comparative public policy. There’s nothing like the prospect of one’s untimely demise to focus the attention, of course, but what’s interesting is that the current crisis is rapidly becoming a test of the competence of governments everywhere.

Japan’s decision to firstly quarantine and then release the poor passengers on the Diamond Princess has been widely condemned. I’m no health expert, but I’m guessing that confining potentially sick people in cramped conditions and then releasing them without really knowing who is infected, who isn’t, or where they might be going, isn’t considered best practise in medical circles.

But at least there was a degree of transparency about Japanese efforts, even if the government may not have been thrilled about the resulting public commentary. In China things are rather different. From the outset the CCP has tried to control and limit the information flow. But even in China’s famously authoritarian and intrusive state, that’s easier said than done these days.

A constant stream of alarming footage has appeared on social media showing the overcrowded and under-resourced condition of Chinese hospitals. To be fair, any country might struggle to cope with the numbers of people affected by the virus, which might explain Japan’s decision to pass the infected parcel. In China’s case, however, this has not stopped the police, army and gangs of vigilantes from rounding up anyone who might be sick, often in fairly brutal ways. Unfortunately for them, much of this has been filmed.

Some people may be unsurprised by such strong arm tactics, but there are striking similarities with the behaviour of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. But given that – if the figures can be believed – the outbreak may be coming under control in China just as it looks like spreading everywhere else, will we have to contemplate similar measures in less authoritarian states?

What would happen if it takes hold in famously democratic and infamously unsanitary India, for example? The comparison between the two Asian giants is unlikely to flatter India, which despite lots of hype about its prospects, still lags behind China in many ways, including crowd control. The possible impact in Africa doesn’t bear thinking about, but has got to be on the cards, especially given the number of Chinese workers who routinely transit in and out of the region.

This is not a gratuitous racist slur, but simply a recognition that the country at the epicentre of the crisis will have the largest numbers of potential carriers – for the moment, at least. Knowing quite how to respond to China’s status as ground zero when it’s also your biggest trade partner is the key question for China’s neighbours. That includes us, of course.

Australia is especially exposed, dependent and subject to unfavourable commentary from the Chinese government and people. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that Australia’s relationship with China has always been fairly instrumental and ambivalent. Our response to the current crisis will consequently be closely scrutinised, and not just in China.

The Morrison government’s ability to manage the diplomatic fallout of this crisis may be the least of their worries if the disease takes hold here. There have been so many stuff-ups of late, that one more might prove terminal, and not just for the government. If Australians start expiring in greater numbers from what many will, rightly or wrongly, see as an entirely avoidable problem, then there really could be a crisis, and not just of public policy.

How would Australians respond to Chinese-style round-ups and knocks on the door from public officials? Yes, it all sounds a bit unlikely and – well – foreign at this stage, but stranger things have happened even when things aren’t quite literally a matter of life and death.

There’s nothing like a real life stress test to see what governments and their respective leaders are made of. If Xi doesn’t get things under control, it really could be the end of the line as the tacit trade-off between limited individual freedom and improvements in the quality of life unravels. The stakes may not be quite so high for Morrison et al, but a mishandling of the crisis may inflict further long-term damage on the already tarnished reputation of democracy.

Mark Beeson is Professor of International Politics at the University of Western Australia. His latest book is Environmental Populism: The Politics of Survival; in the Anthropocene.

This entry was posted in Health, Politics. Consider contributing. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to MARK BEESON. What’s at stake in the Coronavirus crisis?

  1. Mark Beeson says:

    Thanks for the thoughtful responses, chaps. Yes, striking the right note in articles like this is a bit of an issue in itself and probably says a lot more about the author than the topic. The general point about bringing out the best – or worst – in comparative political systems is an important one, I think, though. It will al be interesting, if nothing else.

  2. Geoff Taylor says:

    From the current paper Denis Kainov of the University of Helsinki and twelve others:

    “ from the paper by Kainov and others in International Journal of Infectious Diseases:

    “ No vaccines and drugs are available for prevention and treatment of coronavirus infections in humans (Eurosurveillance Editorial, 2020). However, safe-in-man BSAAs could be effective against 2019-nCoV and other coronaviruses (Figure 5). For example, chloroquine [an 86 year old antimalarial drug] and remdesivir effectively inhibited 2019-nCoV virus infection in vitro (Wang et al., 2020). Moreover, teicoplanin, oritavancin, dalbavancin, monensin and emetine could be repurposed for treatment of 2019- nCoV infections. Oritavancin, dalbavancin and monensin are approved antibiotics, whereas emetine is an anti-protozoal drug. These drugs have been shown to inhibit several corona- as well as some other viral infections ( (Shen et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2016). Importantly, clinical investigations into the effectiveness of lopinavir, ritonavir [HIV drug] and remdesivir have started recently against 2019-nCoV infections ( Thus, safe-in-man BSAAs may represent drug candidates for prophylaxis and treatment of 2019-nCoV coronavirus infections.” BSAAs – broad spectrum antiviral agents.”

    The idea is to mitigate the effects until the immune system can kick in.

    The National Plan on the web seems to omit any mention of civil aspects such as ensuring fair distribution of food and essentials, black market control, overbuying followed by scalping on essential items, and controls on critical raw materials for formulating drugs.
    State and territory health acts provide for emergency powers for state and local government officials, such as environmental health officers. The necessary written authorisations are in place in my local government authority, for example.

  3. Anthony Pun says:

    Without a bit of “geopolitical sauce” this article would “taste” bland. Despite its careful skirting around the issues, the temptation to “rub it in” is indeed a favorite pastime and is difficult to resists.
    If China has been a democracy, COVID19 would have infested the planet at an alarming rate. The outbreak in South Korea and Japan (cruise ship) is similar (high density living) but the management was different. Japanese officials admitted making a serious mistake in not isolating the passengers into national group and allowed the crew to mix with all and sundry (hindsight). Some argued that the Indian positive cases are low because of their diet, ie. the curry herbs and spices could be natural killers to the virus!
    Epidemics in China, were frequently recorded throughout history where an entire village is wiped out and there is no recorded fallout of the emperor or the governor of the province due to the people “blaming the authorities”. The Chinese historical experience is unlikely to topple President Xi and in fact, when this epidemic dies down, more accolades for him is likely.
    One may argue that some zealous officials may be over reaching their authority but many in the world has agreed that this epidemic requires drastic/draconian action and this time, not for the sake of exercising power, but saving the people’s lives in China and abroad.
    Of course, in a democracy, we have to overcome “human rights” hurdles and allegations of facist behaviour if we tried to lockdown the population and imposed travel band, public monitor of body temperature by drone (latest AI drone/robot) etc. The late Chairman Deng Xiaoping would approve such methods as his motto was “Any cat that catches mice is a good cat”.
    There is no middle ground for COVID19 as it is non-partisan to political systems!

  4. I’m not sure that I’ve read your tone properly Mark but is there an adjunct message in your piece? “Responsibility for the Coronavirus epidemic has been shifted to local officials in Wuhan..” Well certainly any first alert comes from the locals. Tardiness, petty politicking, we’ve seen all of that here. Rare that it wouldn’t be the case.
    “..rounding up anyone who might be sick, often in fairly brutal ways. Unfortunately for them, much of this has been filmed”.
    They’re no intellectuals just dumb recalcitrants being compelled to follow direction. We’ve got ’em here – antivaxer types or just plain yobos. We will “have to consider similar measures” surely.
    Some of the other imagery is a bit suss too. Plenty of doors get bashed in here – ask the muslim community in S-W Sydney. Just sayin’.

Comments are closed.