By Nisan Başçiftçi
COVID-19 pandemic has affected and continues to affect the whole world, including the most powerful countries. More than 22.5 million cases were reported and 789 thousand
contaminated people were deceased. Besides the individuals and healthcare systems, COVID-19 has also tested the governments and their governance abilities. Various broadcast channels, journals, and reporters defined fight of governments with the COVID-19 as “World War 3”.
Considering the death tolls and unexpected break out of the virus, defining it as a war is not
inexact; however, for the first time, the enemy was common and unknown. Even though
experiences related to the SARS and MERS provided some detailed data about it, its
contagiousness was unprecedented. Therefore, neither of these superpowers was able to
establish alliances with it nor foresee its next move as they would in an undistinguished war.
However, responses of countries were not the same; subsequently, some were more successful to handle it by the measures they implement. What is interesting about these countries was, most of them were governed by female leaders, or they had the female majority in parliaments and other parts of legislative bodies.
What was the difference between “successful” and “failed” countries’ policies and actions?
One of the observations that were made regarding the attitudes of the leaders was that they
continually defined and considered COVID-19 as not only a foreign attack targeting their
economies but also as the ordinary flu exaggerated by officials who try to cause public unrest.
In contrast, what resulted in public unrest and deteriorating levels of public trust were these
responses that have been made late and incomplete. For instance, the United Kingdom and the United States, being countries that disdained the virus and were late to implement the
necessary measures, experienced riots related to the obligations concerning mask usage, while citizens of states like Taiwan and Iceland followed the instructions of the Health Ministry and abided the measures imposed by the legislative bodies. Away from being objective, I suppose that we may call this disparity a political failure. Leaders pointing out the virus as an attack targeting their governments, caused the public unrest that they desired to avoid with the increasing death tolls and case numbers as a result of late responses to the virus.
Taking our attention, leaders tended to consider it as ordinary flu and an attack on the
governments were male leaders, while countries governed by female leaders succeeded to
implement necessary measures securing the public trust. Should we consider their stance
against the virus as a benevolent approach and not an action made by measuring its risks, or
evaluating it as a possible attack? Were these successful approaches all coincidences of
unconscious women trying to handle it without taking any risks? Even though that possibility
might be supported by Iceland’s decision to close its borders to any foreigner while its
economy was dependent on tourism by high rates, assumption like that is fallacious.
Iceland can be shown as a great example of how to handle a pandemic on a national basis if any IO’s needs to release guidance concerning the crisis. The aforementioned closure of borders was announced by Jacinda Ardern on mid-march and strict precautions toward the increase of cases were taken by the day the first case was confirmed.By the 4th of May, the number of cases was 0 and the government was ready to open schools back by the new pandemic-compatible infrastructure they did set. Ardern and Iceland government was one of the countries, among those who prioritize transparency and shared daily case numbers publicly,that succeeded to report 0 COVID-19 cases for straight 50 days.
Taiwan, another case where measures and public awareness exceeded the severity of COVID-19, did manage the quarantine process properly and in a well-organized way. Known for its proximity to China, Taiwan was not affected as much as expected. Taiwan was one of the first countries that had a COVID-19 case thus they were the ones who experienced it from the start without any proper information about the specialties and treatment of the virus
Despite the peregrination of people from Wuhan, where the virus originated at, to Taiwan, the government’s response was immediate and significantly effective. Tsai Ing-wen activated and urged all bodies of the Central Epidemic Command Centre (CECC).
Besides all the measures and centers that were activated, what Tsai Ing-wen and the government achieved differently was arranging the industrial area coherently to the crisis and assuring that production continues parallel to the demands deriving from the needs of hospitals and medical services. For instance, just after a couple of weeks, Taiwan was already producing the number of masks that even satisfied more than the whole Taiwan population needed, considering two masks per person was adequate daily. Early taken precautions and raised awareness regarding the crisis among people helped to control the case numbers and death tolls thus securing the public trust. By June 29, only seven death case was reported with 447 confirmed cases, %97 being recovered, in Taiwan, a country with 23.8 million population.
What comes to mind is whether any specific reason for women's success in the COVID crisis
exists. Various reporting channels and journals made similar points about their success, but
either of them couldn’t point out a reason behind it. Some considerably sexist points can be
made, but generalizing an attitude of leaders concerning a global crisis would be superficial.
Innate characterization of women nature as sensitive or fragile does not respond to our
questions. A person taking risks for millions of people can be defined by anything but fragile and sensitive. What they do was, in my opinion, prioritizing human life over economies and political opponents. Asserting that Taiwan or Germany had great alliances and no opponent countries compared to those of the United States would nothing but ludicrous: having political affairs as well, these countries managed to evaluate outcomes of possibilities and took actions regarding them rather than blaming other governments or IO’s for not responding the crisis adequately or not reporting the existence of a coronavirus related deaths.
Nevertheless, it seems that the discrete characteristics of these leaders were related to their
priorities, policies, and ideologies. Focusing on enhancing the situation by taking action was
their priority over making accusations.
Does the altruistic side of women leaders overweight the egocentric side when the situation
concerns public health? This assumption may be supported by the closure of Iceland borders for a long period while their economy primarily relies on tourism. Another point about it is whether this altruistic inclination-which may also relate to our COVID-19 versus women leaders case- derives from the nature of the particular gender, or altruistic behavior is about one's personality. Related research conducted by sociologists shown that contrary to common misperception of female nature: females are inclined to describe themselves by using masculine attributes like -dominant, or independent-rather than to traditional feminine
attributes like sensitivity, etc.
In conclusion, what we try to attribute to their characteristics and sense of responsibility to
their community is part of the hidebound perception of female nature and also lacking
evidence. In my opinion, the key to their success was handling the problem itself before
tackling public opinion or trust. They did know that they would manage to secure public trust if they could keep the COVID-19 case graphs flat and death tolls low as it can be by the
restrictions they impose and awareness they raised among their people. Acclaiming their
success, we may recognize Tsai Ing-wen, Jacinda Ardern, and Angela Merkel as reputed
winners of the first stage of our war with the COVID-19.
Comments