Pandemia 2020

Democracy, technology and prevention:
the response of the Asian democracies to the COVID-19

After that Italian government decided to choose as a model the “containment” plan put in place by the Chinese government, the philosopher Giorgio Agamben stated that “a society that lives in a perpetual state of emergency cannot be a free society.” The various reactions to this statement, can be summed up by the idea that being “at war,” we need exceptional measures to contain the virus and to fight it effectively. Even if they affects our lives and our basic democratic rights, these actions must be implemented (by politicians), protected (by law enforcement agencies), and guaranteed (by the moral authority of the WHO). I analyzed these concepts by taking in consideration two key sentences widely disseminated in the Italian narration about coronavirus: “all the world has been taken surprise by what happened” and “totalitarian regimes have a better ability to handle emergencies.” My critique is based on the evidence of how two democracies, Taiwan and South Korea, have managed and are managing this emergency.

The Taiwanese Government (ROC), after the SARS crisis on 2003, has set up a medical and governmental commission to prepare a contingency plan to be implemented in the case of of a new epidemic. This committee endorsed the development of technological supports that help to trace the contacts and movements of infected people. Already by mid-December 2019, rumors of a possible virus in the Wuhan area had begun to circulate, and checks on all aircraft arriving from Wuhan have been in place since 31 December 2019. The passengers coming from China were warned of the possible danger and the government has immediately set up a toll-free number to contact in case of symptoms. In this way, contamination of hospitals and private clinics has been completely prevented. Moreover, thanks to the technological system the experts, following and reconstructing the meetings carried out by the sick people, they were also able to trace back to the asymptotic infected. All universities, schools and public facilities, but also supermarkets and even small shops were obliged to measure the body temperature. Both students and teachers wear masks, as well as people on public transport and in offices. Of course, working from home and teaching online has been encouraged, but schools, offices and industry have never closed. In addition, to avoid massive panic buying, Taiwanese government implemented a system which allows only a limited number of facial masks per week, and the masks can be bought only through the public health insurance card. In terms of democracy, the government organized a daily press conference to describe the evolution of the epidemic and to explain to citizens what measures have been taken and how these will affect their lives. Analysts and policy-makers say that the preparation is so effective that last month people’s acceptance of the government increased unexpectedly.

South Korea has followed a strategy that can be explained by several factors: the country past experience, the quality of its health system and the way it reimburses health care, its income level and, of course, its political system. The "containment" approach was not well received by the Korean government, which advised people to stay at home, but refused to impose this measure which would be perceived by society as totalitarian. The country has slowed down, but has not stopped. The government has given priority to experimentation. Within two weeks, Korea has designed and developed a network of laboratories that give it the capacity to test 15,000 patients a day, a capacity unparalleled anywhere else in the world. The testing process takes about 10 minutes. The results are then announced quickly and those in need of treatment are referred to hospitals while other people are treated at home. The Korean government has acted in a short time and in a per