Reflection on the Protests against Pandemic Lockdown

by Laura Lai/ Essay

At the end of February and beginning of March 2020 almost all governments decided on a lockdown because of the COVID-19 pandemic with the precise purpose of slowing down the spread of the virus. Basically, from one day to another, shops got closed, businesses went bankrupt, people got jobless and almost all of us forced by this new and sudden circumstance to adapt to a new indoor reality. Mid May 2020 is the period of global lockdown ease with lots of people around the globe protesting against governments for having been taken away the liberties for which people have been fighting for centuries. Theoretically can democratic governments do that?

This short analysis does not challenge the existence of the virus, but it starts from the assumption that it exists; and this analysis applies to the liberal democracies, whose democratically legitimized governments are – more or less directly – ‘accused’ of ‘tyranny’ for having temporarily put on hold citizens’ liberties.

Political theory, particularly Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in his ‘Second Treaty on Government’ make a distinction between a ‘state of nature’ governed by reason as given by God and the ‘state of law’ governed by authorities according to laws.

            There is no question that all individuals are born free and with the ‘inalienable right’ to enjoy all rights they have in the state of nature, meaning: to enjoy their own life, liberty, property, as well as the right to oppose those who want to hurt them or deprive them of their right to enjoy life, liberty, property, etc. Therefore, in a state of nature, the individual can take the law in its own hands and be himself a judge. That is the reason why it is considered that the individuals in a state of nature are equal – because they can judge and punish by themselves.

            But even in a state of nature nobody is allowed to harm anybody, because each individual is a creation of God that gives life, that allows each individual to live as long as He wants and for a purpose He has. And if the state of nature is governed by reason given by God, it makes sense that, even in the state of nature where there is no other authority but God, nobody is entitled to hurt the life, health, property of somebody else, because he who does that goes against the Will of God. Even in the state of nature, reason tells that each individual should preserve itself and should preserve humanity in general.

            However, every time when there is a smaller or larger group of people there are usually interests. Then, the divine reason is darkened by passion, selfishness, revenge, interests, ambition, etc. The biblical story of Cain and Abel is an unfortunate example of state of nature, when reason is darkened by envy – a story that shows that one of the worse things in an individual is the envy for somebody else’s wealth, success, potential, prospects, beauty, etc. and when it gets stronger than reason it can lead to murder among brothers.

The ‘state of law’ refers to the organization of the ‘civil society’ or the ‘political society’. Nowadays, even the term ‘society’ has different meanings, particularly when referring to ‘Lawyers’ Society’, ‘Writers’ Society’, etc., but they all refer to a group of people hierarchically organized and all of them hierarchically organized in the larger society. Purely theoretical a married couple is a small society, a family is also sociologically considered a small society. And we all make the whole big ‘political’ or ‘civil’ society – at John Locke, at least, the terms of civil and political society are used as synonyms although nowadays we make a distinction between the two.

            Theoretically, each individual has left the state of nature and entered the state of law, when it consented to allow institutions to organize its life according to laws we agree upon. And when the society disagrees with certain laws, it has the right to protest and even to change governments. We all left the state of nature, when we became or when we formed a country. On the other hand, individuals have also the right to flee a country in their inalienable right to pursue their own happiness and to choose to live within a society that responds better the individual needs it has, because individuals are different, needs are different, opinions are different and so are societies – differently organized although all democratic.

            The point is that each individual left the state of nature and theoretically entered the state of law when we all created ‘the society’ – an organized entity and we authorized some people to make laws, to take decisions and to judge the disputes. In the state of law – at least theoretically – nobody is exempted by the law, we are all still equal, but in front of law, and we are all expected to participate at the exercise of the law (ex. the police spreading protesters not respecting the rules on social distancing and mask wearing because of the COVID-19 pandemic).

Therefore, governments are born from individuals’ common consent, so that we can govern ourselves according to common laws for our common peace and protection that we are deprived of in a state of nature. The concept of ‘liberty’ does not mean ‘complete permission’. Not even democratic governments have unlimited power, but their powers are limited by the theoretical aim of government that is to preserve the live, health, property of each individual of the society. It is said that in a state of law nobody should have the right to destroy rights such as life and health of itself or that of humanity, unless that person has a higher or more noble purpose than that of individual and humanity' preservation.

            There are most probably no laws about how should a government do in case of a pandemic. However, the political theory suggest that in the state of law each individual has previously given this prerogative to the governments to take decisions for preservation and for the, general, public good when we entered the state of law. Governments around the world thought that a temporary and different form of organization – ‘the lockdown’ – should be the best decision to slow down the spread of the virus for all individuals’ preservation.