Discuss democracy in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic
Overview
The COVID-19 epidemic struck in the middle of a democratic downturn. Globally, popular support for the most essential component of democracy-regular elections-has waned [1, 2]. Early research indicates that, similar to the introduction of foreign threats to national security, the COVID-19 epidemic may initially boost support for the current administration [3, 4]. Some suggest that such a tendency is good for democracy [5, 6], while others worry that it implies a greater willingness to sell off core liberties [6, 7]. However, as is frequently the case, the preponderance of public opinion research on the epidemic has concentrated on industrialized, rich democracies.
In fragile democratic systems, how does a public health catastrophe such as a worldwide pandemic impact political opinions? According to political science research, there are numerous possible public reactions to crises, but which one occurs in a worldwide pandemic relies on how the public sees the problem. Does the people strike out against the incumbent in accordance with the blind retrospection model, unite alongside the administration as if the epidemic were a war, or shift in obedience to authority and authoritarian principles? Our survey experiments in Haiti show that public opinion changed in a way similar with the kind of rally effects observed in situations of interstate war during the start of the COVID-19 epidemic.
The epidemic had already begun globally by the time it reached Haiti and we conducted our poll. This suggested that some Haitians were already aware of COVID-19 and were taking efforts to avoid infection. An experiment like ours necessitates that the issue being stimulated is not already saturated to the point where the treatment has no obvious effect. We were able to capitalize on the fact that there was still some heterogeneity in the amount to which individuals were primed with important information since we conducted our poll early in the epidemic in Haiti. Still, the fact that it was already on many of our respondents’ minds might explain why our prime had such a minor impact.
