Leadership in the Times of Crisis
Part One: The Mayhem
As we have seen in the present crisis, many leaders have not been able to live up to their image and expectations. Some suppress crucial information. Some deny existence of crisis. Others engage in symbolism and tokenism.
The CoronaVirus disaster provides a unique opportunity to scholars to compare leadership style. This situation is peculiar since, for the first time, leaders across nations need to react to the same threat and similar challenges of economic and social meltdown.
When the disaster strikes, the common men and women get worried. First, they need to sit at home and protect themselves. Second, they need to think of and protect their families. Third, they are not allowed to get sick. In addition, they need to take care that nobody at home at gets sick.
Doesn’t that sound like a mammoth task? That is their present. Yet, what about their future? Will they lose their income? Will they lose their jobs? Will their saving last? Will their insurance be adequate if something untoward happens to them? The commoners look at each other for answers.
Then all of them arrive at the root of the questions- How long will this disaster last? When will the dark cloud go away? Is there any light at the end of the tunnel?
It is exactly at this precise moment that the commoners look at their leaders with some expectations. They turn to them for some answers, for some solutions. After all, they think, this is why they elevated their leaders- to get answers when they themselves feel lost. The leaders should be able to see, the public expects, what the commoners are not able to see. The leaders should be able to envision, find some unique solutions, at least provide a direction.
When Leaders Fail Expectations
As we have seen in the present crisis, many leaders have not been able to live up to this image and expectations. The leaders disappoint the common man even in normal times, and they let down the common man more and more in the times of crisis. In some countries, autocratic leaders are seen to be suppressing vital information. “There is no virus, and there is no threat”, the government in these countries keeps saying until a few citizens drop dead. “Everything is under control. We have enough provisions in all hospitals”, the government says after a couple of months, maintaining its denial mode even when a few hundreds more drop dead and thousands get sick and sicker. Suppression of crucial information and denial of the existence of a crisis are two common strategies that political leaders use unashamedly.
More and more journalists and writers now deplore the actions and policies of the Chinese President and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). They call their conduct to be reprehensible. They accuse that Chinese authorities systematically suppressed whistle-blowers and hid vital data and information. It is said that China intentionally destroyed lab samples and prevented the World Health Organization (WHO) from gaining access to information and systems.
Observers and scholars however also admit it reluctantly that after the initial denials China got back into its gear and implemented its zero-contact policy efficiently and, albeit, ruthlessly. In Wuhan, local authorities went from door-to-door for health checks — forcibly implementing isolation and quarantine. Makeshift hospitals and quarantine facilities were erected virtually overnight making it possible to isolate every resident suspected of infection. According to some reports, even parents were separated from children, if they displayed even faintest of symptoms of the virus. An autocratic yet decisive regime does come in handy at the times of such crises, humanitarians reluctantly admit.
Police in Wuhan used drones for a 24-hour vigil on the streets. Police scolded anybody who was loitering on the streets and people were asked in no uncertain terms to immediately get inside their homes. Citizens were chided for not wearing masks or for not maintaining social distance. Technology came in handy. Using face-recognition built into a phone-based app, authorities were able to colour-code citizens classifying them in categories according to the risk of infection they posed to others. Police officers then used this app to decide whether to allow individuals to enter malls, cafes, and other public places.
Liberal democracy: A tragic Tale of Affordances
If China’s Xi Jinping could control the virus spread so well in Wuhan, why couldn’t his counterpart do the same in Italy? After all, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte was better informed than Xi Jinping_ and could have easily learned from China. “The State is here.” He said in an effort to assure the public. Yet the death toll in Italy has been climbing up tragically and the situation looks so out of control that several rumours of Conte’s submission to the God have done rounds on the Internet. (In truth, Conte never gave up.) If Italy’s experience shows anything, it is that measures such as isolation and sealing of borders need to have been taken earlier and enforced with a heavy hand.
Perhaps Conte’s problem lay in the liberal democratic system and a humanitarian framework within which he and his colleagues were working. In a liberal humanitarian framework, decisions can be taken only after extensive consultations with stakeholders. Such consultations can be time-consuming and (literally) deadly in a situation of fast-spreading disease. Second, Italy’s authorities were unable to implement the decisions of lock-down and isolation with a heavy hand. By the time they got into the implementation routine, Italy’s death toll had already reached to be one of the highest in the world. More people have died since then and others live under the fear of death. According to a report, the actual death toll in Italy is likely to be much higher, if we count the deaths that are taking place at home. It takes several hours for an ambulance to reach the needy and medical attention is sporadic and scant. If any of us need to jump to the conclusion related to the flippant side of liberal democracy, Italy’s Conte has become a textbook case. His approach proved to be piecemeal and his attempts to break the chain of contacts always lagged behind the spread of virus. Political observers comment that Conte worried too much about civil liberties and economy in the early stages of the viral spread. By the time he got hold of the situation, it was already too late for the spread. Italy paid a heavy price for Conte’s lack of ability to take painful decisions sooner.
“This crisis is unique.Unprecedented.” My Sociologist colleague in India tells me. “Our national borders are locked. Given a choice, I would like to run away, fly somewhere where I find it safer and healthier. But there are no flights at the airport. I am at the mercy of the leaders of my country who I never liked.”
“Where would you have a gone? Which place in the world is safer and healthier?” I try to corner him. He struggles for a reply.
“And what about those who NEVER have this choice of going away? What about those who are always locked down, closeted, begging for the mercy of the authorities and the leaders?”
My sociologist friend admits that there are no answers to this question.
The Indian Immunity: Fiction with a Real Hero
Until the end of the last year, I lived in Brunei, a tiny Islamic nation that is governed by monarchy. We had abundant resources, abundant space, and the enviable equality among citizens that such tiny nations effortlessly create.
Blissfully unaware of the oncoming crisis, I arrived at the beginning of this year in the world’s largest democracy- India . My next planned destination would have been Singapore if the world was not thrown in the present, seemingly unending, times of uncertainly.
In India, my countrymen do not know fear. Virus or no virus, sickness or no sickness, they love to gather in hordes, chatting and eating in close proximity of each other. Roaming, chatting, laughing (and sometimes even singing and dancing) on the streets is the only way of life here. Then there was lockdown, and all of us reluctantly accepted the leadership directive to stay at home. After a few weeks, my educated and aware friends began to ask questions- Why is the government not embarking on a mass scale testing? What is being done about hospital beds? Does the nation have enough ventilators?
Many Indians do not take the infection threat personally. Some believe that there is such a thing as ‘Indian immunity’ because we eat more of spices- especially turmeric and garlic. There is also a belief that since Indians have been inoculated with BCG, an anti-tuberculosis vaccine, they have antibodies that will protect them from Carona. “There is too much made of the so called Indian immunity” says Dr Shmaika Ravi. “It is still very early to make any conclusions regarding BCG.”
Effects of the Virus disaster strike the have-nots harder. Almost seventy percent of working population of this populous country works for the unorganised sector. They have no savings scheme, no retirement, no insurance, and no allowances. “From tomorrow, you will stay where you are. We will provide you food”, said the Prime Minister. These workers were shocked. Some of them began to walk to their homes- hundreds of kilometres away. The police tried to stop them, beat some of them who were persistent. Some of them got sick on the way, some died. “More will die.” Says Dr Chandra of Mishigan State University in an interview to India Today, “Because nutrition is the key. When these migrant workers will reach their homes, they are unlikely to get any nutrition. Poorly nourished people are much more vulnerable to infection.”
“I apologise to my countrymen. Times are tough. Yet, Believe me, we will win this war.” The Prime Minister said on the national radio the next day.
Then the police got more serious. “We will punish all those who spread this virus. Please stay at home.”
“Yes, I would like to stay at home. But I do not have a home.”I see one man explaining to the police on YouTube. “I barely have a place to sleep. I live in a hutment of about a hundred square feet. I share the pace with nine others. How can all of us stay at home?”
There are millions like him who live in huts, on the street, in unfinished buildings and even in cement pipes.
“We should not watch news any more.” I selfishly and sheepishly tell my wife. “It makes me sick. Let me mediate and do some yoga.”
What the heck are our leaders doing? Don’t they have any better solution?
Just as a diversion, I get on a video chat with my friend in Singapore. He is a freelance trainer. “All my classes and training assignments were cancelled. I have received no income for the last two months”, he laments.
“Shouldn’t the government pay you some allowance? After all, that is what the government reserves are for!”
“They probably will. Yet, I don’t know whether I have the right paperwork for that. And the payment will just be a token.”
We grumble a little and moan the fact that although Singapore is one of riches countries in the world and sits on billions of dollars of reserves, the citizens always find themselves left on their own at such times of crises.
In reality, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee was as proactive as he could be in this situation. Singapore had a plan ready to be rolled out as early as in January. The city state had leant a lot from its handling of the SARS crisis in 2003. Many of those lessons came in handy in the handling of the Cornona threat.
The Singapore government is able to react to any crisis with speed since it citizens are highly co-operative in accepting restriction on expression, movement and liberties. This is why border controls were imposed soon after the disease first erupted in China. This was followed by systematic contact tracing and wide-scale testing. Much of the media in Singapore is nationally controlled, and these controls help Singapore in devising a singular and cohesive communication strategy. The nation also gave more teeth to its law to correct misinformation and falsehood spread through social media, gaining more censorship rights in the process.
Taking a cue from Wuhan, Singapore also used a phone-based app. However, the Singapore app (TraceTogether) is much more powerful in that it uses bluetooth to record distance between users and the duration of their encounters. For any such technology to succeed, citizens need to give up some privacy concerns; and Singaporeans were more than willing to give such consent for the app to use their information. The information was, of course, encrypted and the government promises to delete it after a short period of time. Using this information, health authorities were immediately able to call citizens who were either infected or were suspected to be carriers. Such individuals were instantly placed in quarantine.
The fact that surprises some humanitarian scholars is that there is a high degree of acceptance among citizens for such extreme level of monitoring by state.(“The Big Brother is always watching.”, humanitarians would say.) Further, Singapore’s legal framework is exceptionally robust to handle any opposition to such monitoring in times of crises.
“There is nothing they should be doing differently,” said a WHO representative, expressing satisfaction over the Singapore methods. Singapore had to tap into its reserves not once, but twice; and provided a very generous support to organised as well as unorganised sectors. Yet, it is true that citizens always expect more from their governments. When I bring the proactive side of Singapore leaders to the attention of my Singaporean friend, he doesn’t want to talk much about it. “It is easy to control a small nation”, he says in a dismissive tone.. Then he quickly changes track of conversation. “How is your daughter and how is your son-in-law doing? I heard that the situation in New York is precarious.” My friend asks me with concern. We then begin to talk about New York.
Leaders, Responsibility Avoidance, and Opportunism
United States now has the highest death toll in the world. The country delayed mass testing, went to and fro on several decisions and found itself to be lacking in several resources. The healthcare scene hardly matches its status as one of the most “developed” countries.
The American public sees their President as a highly erratic personality, notoriously famous for taking abrupt and irrational decisions. Surprisingly, Trump, who always projects himself as an aggressive leader, failed to show the aggression in his policy this time. “I don’t take responsibility.” He said talking about the low rate of testing for the virus. Worse, he told governors to find life-saving equipment on their own. This resulted in the states outbidding one another in the resulting purchases. Shortage of medical supplies was yet another case in point. “It’s supposed to be our stockpile; it’s not supposed to be state stockpiles”, Trump said cryptically in response to a question. “To Donald Trump, corona virus is just one more chance for a power grab.” Says Professor Robert Reich, former US Secretary of Labour; and many commentators support him.
Against the backdrop of Trump’s lack of control and assumption of responsibility, India’s PM has emerged as a strong and resolute leader. Although India suffered from the long initial delay in decision making, flinched from large-scale testing, offered little in consolation to its internal migrant worker population; one thing Prime Minister Modi cannot be accused of is a policy paralysis. PM Modi was successful in projecting the image of a leader who knew what is to be done in this crisis. Apart from administering a total lockdown that was unprecedented in history, Modi offered his ‘junta’ (the public) two large-scale events that provided them with a much-needed release of their pent-up feelings. In one event, members of public were asked to stand in their balconies or yards and offer a vote of thanks to the doctors and members of administration. The public was supposed to clap, bang steel plates and utensils at a designated hour (“Five minutes at Five o’clock” said Modi in a televised address). In the second event, members of public were asked to switch off the electric lights and turn on flashlights or light candles for nine minutes. (“Nine minutes at Nine o’ clock” was Modi’s catchy formula.)
All Winners, Some Heroes
A large part of India’s intelligentsia ridiculed PM Modi for his cheap symbolism and his penchant for creating an ‘event’ out of the ordinary. He was also accused of taking political advantage of an unprecedented crisis. Yet, a large portion of population responded to the two events as if to say, “Yes, we needed this moment. We trust you. We know what you are trying to achieve and we support you.”
However, if there is any leadership hero in this war, that is surely Germany. In its unique technocratic tradition, German Chancellor Angella Merkel led the country with strict social distancing regime that was enforced earlier than most countries. With the novel ideas such as ‘Kovid taxi’, group testing, and systemic efforts to capacity building, Germany now has capacity to treat more patients than the nation requires. It can now offer assistance to Spain and Italy which they very much require at this critical juncture. Merkel showed how a technocrat leader with science background can bring a country out of disaster with a no-nonsense approach that was implemented without any fanfare. After contact with a doctor who tested positive, Merkel was herself forced into quarantine. She returned to work after she tested negative in several consecutive tests. Merkel and her nation are being abundantly admired for setting an example of how leadership in the times of crisis.
The CoronaVirus disaster provides a unique opportunity to scholars compare leadership styles across nations in the world as all of them react differently to the same threat of virus and similar threats of economic and social meltdowns.
(To be continued in Part 2)
Anil Pathak is the author of Communication and Leadership published by Pearson Education, Singapore.
