The Pandemic on Our Democracy
The Role of Civic Participation in Civic Protection
On 24th March a complete lockdown was announced in India by the Prime Minister in order to fight the ongoing pandemic of Covid-19 virus. While the citizens in the comfort of their homes embraced the news, others dependent on a new day’s labour for livelihood were unable to comprehend their fate thereon. Hours before the lockdown, the Prime Minister, via video conferencing, directed leading print media channels to restrict the spread of any negative information and ensure citizens are aware that the government was committed to fighting the pandemic, a directive influencing the realm of free press (Narendra Modi 2020). There is no doubt that adequate restrictive measures are necessary for the physical and mental well being of the citizens during an epidemic. However, one needs to question the relevance of these restrictions in light of their probable adverse consequences upon the constitutional ethics of the State. As citizens of a democracy, does the situation of a national health emergency merely reduce our role to passive recipients of State actions or does it require pro-active participation through free speech in the decision making process? There must be a balance between the government’s actions undertaken to protect the individual’s right to life and the citizens’ right to free speech so as to participate in the decision making process of the State and reach equitable solutions to the emergency.
With a lockdown in place, public spheres of democracy shrink dramatically making active participation of the citizens all the more pivotal. During the current pandemic, these spheres have shifted to the limited space of virtual world accessible only through mainstream media and internet. All other physical avenues of public discourse such as protests on the streets, strikes and boycotts, public demonstrations and rallies no longer remain as options to demand accountability from the State. Moreover, ordinary citizens with limited resources find it difficult even to approach the judiciary through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) without ready access to legal aid. In such situations, citizens should exercise caution against the State when it tries to take away even these limited options of public discourse in the name of a national health emergency.
Opposition to free speech within the virtual medium is often based on its probable abuse as a panic creating tool with the potential of hindering the effective handling of an emergency situation. However, this problem cannot be mitigated by shooting down the citizens’ fundamental freedoms of speech and expression, just as misuse of a law by few cannot be a reason to deny justice to the many who benefit from it. Reliance upon the government as a sole repository of all pandemic related information does not ensure prevention of fake news. In fact, in situations where suspicions are raised on the State regarding procurement of Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) for health workers, the government cannot be a judge of its own actions (Scroll.in 2020). Instead, an atmosphere that allows information to flow from multiple perspectives curtails dissemination of inauthentic news from a single vantage point. Independence of fact checking journalism, penalties upon those engaging in fake news and efforts to improve the general awareness of citizens with respect to the responsible use of digital medium must be in the forefront of the strategies to fight abuse of free speech.
In recent times, the political climate of the country has witnessed a subjugation of the judiciary to the State. More often than not judgments have been inclined in favor of the government. From inaction in dealing with continuing human rights violations in Kashmir (The Hindu 2020) to blatant denial of hearing of CAA-NRC petitions (Jain 2020), the judiciary has failed to uphold its independent image. This pandemic exponentially increases the scope of passivity of the judiciary and other organs when centralized government actions take over all spheres. This was evident when concerns about the adequacy of welfare measures for labour by the State were raised in the Supreme Court. Instead of demanding explanations with respect to prior planning, the Supreme Court unequivocally accepted the government’s stance that fake news regarding the lockdown led to their mass movements on the street (Indian Kanoon 2020). In the face of such political complacency, active civic participation remains a significant tool to prevent democratic ideals from degenerating into unquestioned authoritarian rule.
Expression of public opinion on virtual platforms not only scrutinizes government’s actions but also exerts public pressure on the State towards political action. Soon after the lockdown was announced, viral videos surfaced of thousands of migrant labour stranded on the streets and the gruesome violence being inflicted by police upon them. This nationwide stir initiated by citizens across social media and other internet forums eventually entered the mainstream media where accountability on the poor planning and lack of transparency in imposing the lockdown was demanded vehemently from the central government. As a result, within four days the central government passed the requisite orders to the state governments to resolve the ongoing crisis of migrant labour and other informal workers (Ministry of Home Affairs 2020).
A democracy continues to breathe and live through the exercise of free speech and expression by its citizens even during emergencies. At the same time, these freedoms are equally important within the realm of international law that democracies seek to promote. With the spread of the pandemic, the Human Rights Watch issued a detailed report with respect to the human rights dimensions of Covid-19. In this report, while emphasizing on the international obligations of nations, it also asserted how permissible restrictions on freedom of expression for reasons of public health, must not put into jeopardy the right itself (Human Rights Watch 2020). Emergencies must not be used as an excuse to clampdown dissent and free speech in the name of maintaining a united front against the pandemic. In fact, free speech promotes inclusivity in such a diverse demographic as ours. It also ensures that equitable access to healthcare and other welfare measures as well as critical information related to the pandemic are being provided to every strata of the society in a just and transparent manner. One needs to start reflecting on their blind faith in the State in effectively confronting the Covid-19 virus in order to prevent other endless viruses from infiltrating the democracy permanently.
Read Is India At War With Covid-19?
Works Cited
- Narendra Modi. “PM interacts with Print Media Journalists and Stakeholders.” 24 March 2020, https://www.narendramodi.in/prime-minister-narendra-modi-interacts-with-print-media-journalists-and-stakeholders-548937.
- Scroll.in. “Coronavirus delays: Why India’s health workers are still facing shortages of safety gear”. Scroll.in, 21 April 2020, https://scroll.in/article/959764/coronavirus-delays-why-indias-health-workers-are-still-facing-shortages-of-safety-gear.
- The Hindu. “J&K students, parties disappointed over SC’s directions on high speed internet.” The Hindu, 11 May 2020, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/jk-students-parties-disappointed-over-scs-directions-on-high-speed-internet/article31561677.ece.
- Mehal Jain. “Will hear CAA petitions once violence stops, says CJI Bobde.” LiveLaw.in, 9 January 2020, https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/will-hear-caa-petitions-once-violence-stops-says-cji-bobde-151441.
- Indian Kanoon, Alakh Alok Srivastava vs Union Of India, indiankanoon.org/doc/129422211/.
- Ministry of Home Affairs. “MHA order restricting movement of migrants and strict enforcement of lockdown measures.” Ministry of Home Affair, 29 March 2020, https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/MHA%20Order%20restricting%20movement%2of%20migrants%20and%20strict%20enforement%20of%20lockdown%20measures%20-%2029.03.2020.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2020.
- Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Dimensions of Covid-19 Response, 19 March 2020.
About the author: Shreyashi is a lawyer having an active interest in democratic dissent, feminism and related socio-political discourses. She has previously written short stories on feminist themes and often likes to speak through opinion pieces.
Follow Project Democracy on Instagram for regular updates @projectdemocracy.yif
