COVID-19 and the Threat to Democracy

In “COVID-19 and the Threat to Democracy,” lawyer Sonsoles Arias-Guedón examines how governments have expanded their authority in response to the pandemic, often at the expense of democratic norms. She argues that the extreme lockdown measures, while presented as necessary for public health, would otherwise be seen as “radical, opportunistic, and even anti-constitutional.” However, Arias-Guedón notes that under the specific conditions of a global health crisis, “widespread panic often functions as the best anesthetic” (Arias-Guedón 2), dulling public opposition to the consolidation of power. For example, the Spanish government under Pedro Sánchez sidelined parliamentary committees, effectively diminishing political oversight. Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin suspended all air traffic, and in China, a sophisticated technological surveillance system tightly monitors citizens both physically and virtually to contain the virus. These cases illustrate how emergency measures have justified unprecedented expansions of executive control.

Arias-Guedón’s analysis situates these developments within the broader narrative framework of COVID-19, highlighting how crisis storytelling facilitates the normalization of extraordinary political actions. By framing the pandemic as an existential threat, governments invoke fear and uncertainty to justify curtailments of democratic processes. This “anesthesia” produced by collective anxiety reconfigures public tolerance, making what would otherwise be unacceptable measures appear necessary and even legitimate. Thus, the pandemic functions not only as a biomedical emergency but also as a narrative device through which regimes redefine the limits of democratic governance, raising critical questions about the balance between security and freedom during crises.