Indicators, security and sovereignty during COVID-19 in the Global South

Abstract

The spread of COVID-19 has seen a contest over health governance and sovereignty in Global South states, with a focus on two radically distinct modes: (1) indicators and metrics and (2) securitisation. Indicators have been a vehicle for the government of states through the external imposition and internal self-application of standards and benchmarks. Securitisation refers to the calling-into-being of emergencies in the face of existential threats to the nation. This paper contextualises both historically with reference to the trajectory of Global South states in the decades after decolonisation, which saw the rise and decline of Third-World solidarity and its replacement by neoliberalism and global governance mechanisms in health, as in other sectors. The interaction between these modes and their relative prominence during COVID-19 is studied through a brief case-study of developments in Kenya during the early months of the pandemic. The paper closes with suggestions for further research and a reflection on parallel trends within Global North states.

COVID- 19 and human right to food: lived experiences of the urban poor in Kenya with the impacts of government’s response measures, a participatory qualitative study

“…Sub-Saharan African countries such as Ghana, Sudan and South Africa also responded quickly to contain the spread of COVID-19 by implementing lockdown measures [ 6 ]. Equally, the government of Kenya promptly implemented measures such as the suspension of international flights, partial lockdown, school closure, curfew, compulsory wearing of masks, a ban on social gatherings, restriction of business operating hours, social distancing and cessation of movement within cities following a marked rise in the COVID-19 cases [ 7 , 8 ]. Incidentally, these restrictions aimed at mitigating the pandemic have been shown to contribute to vulnerabilities such as strained socioeconomic activities, uncertainty, anxiety, mental distress, loss of livelihoods and violation of human rights as reported in previous studies [ 9 , 10 ].…”

“…A report by the United Nations (UN) on Covid-19 states that governments may impose limits on certain human rights in order to respond to national emergencies. Indeed this is provided for by international human rights law [ 8 , 12 ]. The UN has affirmed that response measures shaped by respect for human rights are likely to lead to better outcomes in overcoming pandemics, preserving human dignity and ensuring healthcare for all [ 13 ].…”

“…Other restrictive measures included social distancing, where people were encouraged to stay at home and to avoid shaking hands or hugging, or meeting in large numbers, for example in social gatherings such as weddings and burials [ 7 , 8 ]. In addition, the government implemented other measures such as provision of water tanks, taps and soap for hand washing and hand sanitizers in the community particularly outside business premises, and strict observance of proper sanitation and hygienic practices.…”