Why protect civil liberties during a pandemic?

Abstract

During a public health emergency, a government must balance public welfare, equity, individual rights, and democratic processes and norms. These goods may conflict. Although science has a role in informing wise policy, no empirical evidence or algorithm can determine how to balance competing goods under conditions of uncertainty. Especially in a crisis, it is crucial to have a broad and free conversation about public policy. Many countries are moving in the opposite direction. Sixtyone percent of governments have imposed at least some problematic restrictions on individual rights or democratic processes during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 17 have made substantial negative changes. The policies of Poland and Hungary reflect these global trends and continue these countries' recent histories of democratic erosion. The expertise of public health should be deployed in defense of civil liberties.

The impact of civil liberties, global health security, median age and population size on the spread of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)

“…Our finding implies that, under such emergency circumstances, governments should balance civil liberties with public health protection. This is consistent with the results of Levine's (2021) report that demonstrations of civil liberties such as allowing mass protests in the course of a pandemic can enhance democratic debate but spread the virus. In this way, the Government has a specific responsibility to balance the protection of public health and civil liberties with due care during crises, as stated by Gostin and Hodge (2020).…”

“…Mass demonstrations, face-to-face public legislative meetings, or elections can provide opportunities for infection to spread. Governments may argue that such operations should be postponed (Levine, 2021). The statistics presented by the Chinese Government indicate that the government has successfully stabilized the number of diseases before an optimum degree of social immunity is achieved or before a vaccine is developed and commonly used in the future.…”

Backsliding among indicators of democratic stability relevant to public health: Risks in OECD nations

“…Even well‐situated and respected countries, like Denmark and Sweden, experienced declining Civil Liberties scores, likely due to strict COVID‐19 measures. In countries such as Turkey, Hungary, or Poland, where civil liberties have been on the decline for years (Esen & Gumuscu, 2021; Pap, 2017; Repucci, 2020), we see an unsurprising continuation and perhaps even more pronounced decline due to authoritarian COVID‐19 measures and restrictions (Levine, 2021; Stenberg et al, 2022). Aside from the COVID‐19 pandemic, civil liberties in CEE (Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, etc.)…”

Policy dialogue: Key factors for the success of transit-oriented development infrastructure 3.0 in big cities in Indonesia

“…Bevan and Rasmussen (2017) explained that if a policy dialog were held, the community would become active, supporting the policy. All four city governments appear to understand these arguments and avoid a risk culture that shapes the risk perceptions and behavior of individuals, groups, organizations, and communities unwilling to support policies (Levine, 2021;Streicher et al, 2023). Streicher et al introduce three domains of influence, including society, social context, risk situation, and three cultural layers, which include observable, unobservable, and implicit factors in the context of the risk culture resulting from a policy (Gordon et al, 2020).…”