Global Emergencies: Defining Moments for Leaders
President Trump gives a press conference on the coronavirus pandemic. Obtained courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.
As the world continues to battle the coronavirus outbreak, many around the globe are beginning to adapt to a new normal. Although it is unclear how long the world will remain in a state of emergency, leaders face increasingly challenging issues every day. The goal of keeping infection and death rates as low as possible under unprecedented economic slowdowns are only a few of those challenges. Arguably the most intense problem is the increased popularity of leaders, with significantly more attention and scrutiny towards the decisions they make. Leaders are tested to such an extent that traditional practices are often suspended, with many additional powers granted by liberal democracies. This tends to raise a fundamental concern between opposition politicians and members of the public more generally. Short-term increases in power are often considered necessary but the urgency and panic that come with emergencies may facilitate abuses of power considered unacceptable in situations of normality.
Even in democratic countries, the power leaders have, both in terms of naming emergencies and dealing with them, is significant. In the US alone, more than 100 special provisions exist allowing the President to announce a national emergency. This facilitates the implementation of a number of different measures ranging from shutting down electronic communication around the country to deploying troops in case of significant public unrest. Historically, the checks and balances of liberal democratic institutions have attempted to control this power of leaders. The National Emergencies Act passed by Congress in 1976, for example, ordered the president to respect a series of procedures, ensuring that their authority is limited. These include the requirement for the state of emergency to be renewed every year if necessary, with the House of Representatives meeting once every six months to consider its abolition. The president must also specify both the reasons for naming the emergency and the plans of the government in preparing the national response. The president must give regular updates to the American public, maintaining a degree of transparency during an unprecedented situation. Many democracies around the world have similar restrictions in place, with a shared commitment by both the wider political field and the general public to hold leaders accountable for their actions. Despite the complexity of many emergencies, the danger of leaders acting recklessly outside the rule of law and without respect to fundamental democratic principles continues to be cause for concern.
Such checks and balances, although certainly efficient in controlling leaders, have been unable to reduce the suspicion many show towards their leaders during emergencies. This is partly because some leaders find ways around existing legislation. The mentioned 1976 Act, for example, was ineffective because many of its promised procedures were poorly implemented. The meetings by Congress to discuss prolongations of the emergency never took place. In fact, around thirty states of emergency are still in place, which is considerably more than before the passing of the Act. This underlines the difficulty associated with the successful managing of an emergency, as leaders more globally continue to enjoy considerable short-term boosts in power. This continues to be relevant today as leaders work to tackle an emergency with extraordinary economic and social consequences.
Despite creating significant uncertainty by suspending planned work and projects outlined in party manifestos, emergencies are viewed by many as a defining moment for the political legacies of many leaders. The coronavirus pandemic highlights the fact that emergencies are truly extraordinary times, with the ability of leaders and their careers more generally strictly judged by the quality of their response. With increasing short-term boosts in power and popularity also comes increased scrutiny, as significantly larger amounts of the population tend to show an interest in the political environment. Even the daily actions of leaders, which in normal times would be considered routine, are reported in the media and debated around various different social media platforms. This too is a considerable challenge, as leaders operate in an environment with not even the slightest room for error. We consistently see how decisions a leader makes during an emergency will shape future public opinion about them and their government, encouraging close inspection of their decisions. The famous Iraq Inquiry focusing on the decision by Prime Minister Tony Blair to join the war effort, published in 2016, is arguably a perfect example. Once an emergency is over and time passes, both the political system and the public are free to investigate. This is a clear strength of modern-day democracy, with leaders either praised for a successful response or confronted if significant mistakes or abuses of power are considered to have been committed.
Leaders, too, just like everyone else, have to adapt to a ‘new normal’ likely to leave a significant mark on their political careers and general life. The current situation with the coronavirus reflects this, as leaders face highly demanding tasks whilst operating against a truly unparalleled and extremely unpredictable enemy. Time is certainly against them with lockdown measures increasingly impacting both the mental and economic situation of people in various countries. Public expectations of a well-managed response to the outbreak will continue to grow, and so will the expectation that leaders remain as committed and transparent as possible. In a national or global emergency, it is logical for people to come together and be more supportive of the government effort. It should not, therefore, be a surprise if approval ratings rise and more encouraging attention is directed towards leaders. However, the true scale of an emergency like the coronavirus pandemic is also reflected by the aftermath. Historically, leaders in liberal democracies have been held accountable for their actions, with significant repercussions for their individual legacies. As citizens begin to compare the success of their national response with those of other countries, this pressure is likely to escalate. Such an approach must continue to be encouraged – as the threats facing people around the world continue to change and worsen in nature, transparency is as important as ever.
Leaders should always set examples for the public, but an emergency is a particularly important time for them to demonstrate their true potential and ability. No perfect response will exist to such a complex emergency and mistakes will be made. Even though the work of some leaders like Donald Trump, highlighted by rather unnecessarily-aggressive press conference briefings, continues to raise suspicion, leaders must continue to be questioned. Governing a country is a responsibility like no other, with considerable powers wielded even in times of normalcy. Although the leading priority should always be ensuring the safety of the people, emergencies must also be recognized as a dangerous time with significant opportunity for political wrongdoing. Whether the leader is successful or not in responding to an emergency, their time in office will undoubtedly and rightly be remembered for their management of the emergencies they face.
