The ‘Securitization’ of Covid-19 and its Societal Implications

May 1

May 1 The ‘Securitization’ of Covid-19 and its Societal Implications

In March of last year, former United States president Donald Trump declared a ‘public health emergency’; French president Emmanuel Macron proclaimed that, ‘Nous sommes en guerre sanitaire.’; and British PM Boris Johnson stated that the coronavirus is ‘the biggest threat this country has faced for decades.’ The commonality in these Western leaders' remarks about the coronavirus is an implicit notion of ‘existential threat’. In portraying the coronavirus pandemic as a security threat, these Western leaders established for themselves an ‘emergency authority’, allowing them to enact exceptional measures to deal with this threat.

In their book, Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Buzan, de Wilde, and Waever, introduce the concept of ‘securitization’, to show that constructing a ‘security issue’ always has a deeply political dimension. In short, an issue becomes securitized when it is ‘staged as an existential threat to a referent object by a securitizing actor who thereby generates endorsement of emergency measures beyond rules that would otherwise bind.’ Thus, according to Blazacq, Leonard, and Ruzicka ‘securitization combines the politics of threat design with that of threat management.’ Securitization is a useful way to analyze Western governments’ handling of the Covid-19 pandemic as it reveals how they were successful in their ability to frame the coronavirus as a collective security issue and then be granted the authority to enact any measures necessary to deal with it - allowing them to hide the fact that they had been dramatically unprepared even in light of major warning signs.

At the start of 2020, Covid-19 did not appear to pose an existential danger to a large part of the world. However, coronavirus cases and deaths began rapidly increasing and Western governments realized that virtually nothing had been done to prepare for the virus’ inevitable penetration into their societies. Dealing with the fact that they were significantly unprepared, even in light of major warning signs, Western governments had to make their societies believe that the ‘decisive action’ they were taking was in the public’s best interest. In order for their societies to grant them the ability to take this decisive action and in keeping with the core democratic principle that governments must protect their own population from external risks, the coronavirus pandemic had to be portrayed as a security threat or had to be ‘securitized’. The policies that emerged out of Western governments reaction to the Covid-19 outbreak epitomised this process of securitization and were intended to persuade their societies of the timeliness and appropriateness of their response. As governments used their emergency authority to enact measures that are exceptional to the conduct of everyday democratic politics in the West, the nature of the existential threat led to a general acceptance by the public of the necessity of these measures. The powers granted by this state of emergency eliminated the space for the raising of societal concerns regarding the respect of their civil liberties and their right to evaluate government policy legitimacy and efficiency.

Everything we think of as constitutionally enshrined comes into question when a securitization happens. According to the UK Institute for Government, the government, under the conditions of the pandemic and the new Coronavirus Act of 2020, was able to enact ‘emergency powers’ and take what are normally perceived as unacceptable actions. This act gave the government additional powers to manage the spread of the virus, including but not limited to: the power to turn measures on and off, the power to determine how long measures will last for, the power to close schools/childcare providers, powers regarding public gatherings and premises, and powers relating to potentially infectious persons (including the ability to detain and test). Many of these additional powers given to the government, which focus on the maintenance and enforcement of social distancing, are in violation of basic rights that are guaranteed in democratic countries. The process of securitization that Covid-19 enabled is what has allowed these additional powers to be guaranteed to the government and what has curtailed civilian sovereignty. One prime example of an emergency power being put into policy is lockdowns - which Hogarth has called the ‘most draconian restrictions on ordinary life in living memory’.

There is no doubt that Covid-19 poses a major health risk to billions of people across the world and should be taken very seriously. Over a year has passed by and states like France, the US and the UK still have many aspects of their standard daily lives restricted. It has been reported by the Health Foundation, that mental health is in widespread decline as a result of lockdown and some of the results have been: social isolation, jobs and financial losses, housing insecurity and quality, loss of coping mechanisms, and reduced access to mental health services. According to the Office for National Statistics, 69% of adults have expressed a general feeling of anxiety about the effect of Covid-19 on their lives. Additionally, Vaughn reports that the ‘pandemic’s damage to UK education and mental health will last a decade.’ The BBC shows that the lockdowns resulted in a 10% increase in domestic abuse cases in 2020. It is evident too that these societal restrictions affect different communities disproportionately, leading one to question whether or not restrictions like lockdown are in coherence with democracy. While lockdowns have been successful in containing the virus temporarily, it is not a reach to suggest that they are not sustainable for the long term. And due to the emergency powers currently in place, governments are not required to declare when these restrictions might end.

Governments are never perfect and more often than not they are looking out for the interests of their own citizens. However, the securitization of Covid-19 shows us that, while we have granted our governments the authority to deal with the pandemic in the ways that it deems most suitable, there are serious implications for the ways they continue to do so. This is a common feature of a securitization, as governments are allowed to bypass the normal rules of the game, in order to do what they declare is best for the common good. Throughout the securitization of the coronavirus, democratic governments are implementing draconian policies that resemble those of more authoritarian governments. People have been adhering to these policies because they are told that doing this is the only way they can contribute to the collective good. But as the vaccine is being given out more and more and our movement is for a large part still restricted, people across these Western democracies are wondering more and more whether their governments have any clue as to what they are doing. If Western governments had taken the advice given to them by epidemiologists, the World Health Organisation, leading scientists, and other societal actors and had seen the impact of the disease in China, they could have: informed the public of the extreme risk of coronavirus long before it was already present within their borders; avoided the overly alarmist coronavirus discourse, shaped largely by groups and individuals that do not have the authority or the credibility to be heard; developed a common consensus approach; chosen a more realistic alternative to complete shutdown; avoided the constant policy changes and the major inconsistencies and incoherence reflected in these changes; developed policies that were more flexible to their societies needs. The coronavirus pandemic is thus, a clear example of how governments were able to successfully securitize and move beyond the bounds of normal politics to enact any measures possible. These measures were rushed and lacked the foresight of the implications that they would have on society.