As cases of coronavirus surpass millions globally and many embrace government guidelines to remain at home, an intricate narrative of dissension has arisen, with fears of impingements on freedom, abuses of power, and poverty fuelling a complex story of rebellion.
Over the third weekend of April, thousands of protesters across 22 US states defied stay-at-home orders to rally outside government buildings, demanding state governments relax their coronavirus restrictions and reopen their economies. The protests drew global attention and were largely ridiculed and disregarded as a niche, right-wing manifestations of an extreme group. However, they highlight one of the many materialisations of rebellion against the medical consensus. Despite the media focus on the American protests, the actions have by no means been limited to the United States. Similar protests have appeared in Berlin (Germany), Zgorzelec (Poland), Tripoli (Lebanon), Mumbai (India), Brasilia (Brazil), and even Australia. Further smaller actions have also been recorded; such as refusals to wear masks, both from the public and high-ranking officials, or to adhere to social distancing regulations. These actions vary drastically in both form and extremity, but, more interestingly, so do the motivations behind them.
A common refrain of the American protest placards was “Give me liberty or give me death” along with similar phrases. This sentiment taps into the larger American national identity of freedom, and political elements of wanting small government and reduced restrictions. Similarly, in St Kilda, beach closure signs along the foreshore have been graffitied to advertise the ‘St Kilda Rebellion’, a Facebook page providing an outlet for the “growing discontent of passionate locals” about “nanny state” regulation. The weekly protests in Germany’s capital, feature people of both political extremes accusing Chancellor Angela Merkel of “banning life” for enforcing strict lockdown procedures. It is a discontent that has arisen despite, or unfortunately because of, Germany’s relative success in preventing coronavirus deaths. The tension has proved an opportunity for the far-right ‘Alternative for Germany’ (AfD) party, who has accused the government of exaggerating the virus risk in light of the low mortality. The party has called for the relaxation of restrictions and the immediate reopening of all businesses.
The need, and desire, to work has connected much of the anti-lockdown sentiment. This sentiment was highlighted most succinctly in a protest held in the Polish-German border towns of Zgorzelec, Poland and Gorlitz, Germany. The protest, consisting of 300 people on the Polish side and 100 on the German, was held to demand the reopening of the border so that those employed on the alternate side could return to work. As Reuters reports, some 20,000 Poles work in the German region of Saxony, 10,500 of whom cross the Polish-German border daily. With partner protests in other Polish towns on the German and Czech borders, it is evidently an issue keenly felt in the region. In Italy, small shop owners have been pressured to give away food for free as unemployment draws longer and people run out of food and money. While ‘National Revolution’, a recently-formed Facebook group, has incited people to loot supermarkets in one of the signs of the situation being exploited by “criminal organisations”. It is a worrying development, as poverty leads criminals to escalate their activity and desperation leads yet others to criminal action.
Unfortunately, the push to reopen the economy has seldom been on the local level, with much of the momentum created by business leaders and political figures. Dan Patrick, the Lieutenant Governor of Texas, expressed the sentiment that “there are more important things than living” when discussing economic preservation, while, in a similar sentiment, the mayor of Las Vegas offered her city as a ‘control group’ to see how many would die without social distancing. President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk have drawn ire in tweeting to “liberate” America; Musk describing the ‘shelter-in-place’ guidelines as “fascist”. It’s a sentiment that has run perpendicular to many in the influential political and celebrity communities, who have supported preventative measures through policy, advocacy, and financial assistance (such as the high-profile ‘Together at Home’ concert series organised by Lady Gaga and Global Citizen) to help drive action in an occasionally apathetic populace.
Despite this, however, it is impossible to dismiss anxieties about the stay-at-home orders as solely driven by economic preservation for the wealthy. As one US protestor highlighted, “not everybody can put on their fashionable loungewear and get on Zoom.” It is undeniable that the stay-at-home experience varies drastically: the experience of a media mogul quarantining on a $400 million superyacht is going to be very different to those living in a Mumbai slum where 99% of occupants do not have access to a private toilet. As schools are forced to operate remotely, access to the internet has become a key determiner of access to education, leaving some at risk of falling behind. In the workforce, the gulf is more evident. Some industries, such as technology and finance, have been able to transition quickly to the virtual workplace. However, the lower-paid service industries have suffered, leaving workers either unemployed, working in unsafe environments, or worse, having to choose between the two. For others, it is the home that presents the unsafe environment, as stay-at-home orders may be making violence in homes more frequent, more severe, and more dangerous. Lamentably, these factors mean that for some, isolation has simply been impossible. Further, these situations have left many in a precarious limbo between poverty or violence and state regulations.
Further anxieties have also been raised about the abuse of states’ increased powers during the emergency. Indonesian President Rodrigo Duterte raised international alarm by vowing to send troublemakers “to the grave”; while in France, a young woman was held in police custody for several hours for displaying a banner, reading “Macronavirus, à quand la fin ? ” (Macronavirus, when is the end?). In Australia, where public dismay over errant police fines and a government contact-tracing app had begun to arise, a coalition of peak legal and human rights bodies, such as Amnesty International, has formed to survey state action in relation to COVID-19.
It’s been a time of uncertainty and challenging moral decisions for governments, industry, and the public alike. The pandemic has forced people to spend extended time away from loved ones, face anxieties for both their health and finances, and even evaluate the value of human life. It’s no wonder that the situation has caused division and exacerbated existing tensions. However, as images emerge of reopening beaches and plans form to get people back to work as curves are flattened and people recover, the light at the end of the tunnel becomes more apparent. It’s unlikely that we’ll ever know what the best course of action was for battling the epidemic, but one can only hope that this cause for optimism can help foster the sense of unity that the crisis has inspired.
