Viewpoint

Harry Rakowski: Which has been better for managing COVID-19: Autocracy or democracy?

Globally, half a billion people have had documented infection with COVID-19, and over six million deaths have been attributed to it
A security guard wearing a mask to help protect from the coronavirus stands behind a fence, Monday, March 28, 2022, in Beijing. China began its largest lockdown in two years Monday to conduct mass testing and control a growing outbreak in its largest city of Shanghai as questions are raised about the economic toll of the nation's "zero-COVID" strategy. Andy Wong/AP Photo.

The vicious war in Ukraine that has dominated headlines for the past eight weeks has once again shown the world the brutality of Vladimir Putin and his authoritarian Russian regime. It has also made us more aware of the even greater risk from China’s long-term goal of world domination. Both governments claim that their suppressive ways are superior to democracy. China, as an example, points to how superior their rigid and harsh regional lockdowns have been in controlling the pandemic in their country. In their view, autocracy trumps democracy in the handling of the pandemic. Is there any validity to their claim?

While the pandemic originated in China either from an accidental lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology or from natural animal to human transmission, Chinese case rates surprisingly have been extremely low. The original outbreak in China resulted in only about 75,000 reported cases (likely a major underestimate) and was “contained” by a harsh regional lockdown of millions of people. The virus however was spread by travellers from Wuhan to the rest of the world but somehow not widely to other parts of China. 

How have different democracies and autocracies fared?

As the pandemic caused wave after wave of infection, at least half a billion people globally have had documented infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with over six million deaths attributed to it.1“Globally, as of 5:46pm CEST, 3 May 2022, there have been 511,965,711 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,240,619 deaths, reported to WHO. As of 1 May 2022, a total of 11,532,661,625 vaccine doses have been administered.” https://covid19.who.int/

The numbers of infections are certainly much higher than reported everywhere as cases due to the Omicron variant exploded beyond the ability to formally test and track exposure. While the U.S. has reported about 80 million cases, antibody testing that detected prior infection led to estimates by the CDC that the case counts are likely more than double what has been reported, estimating that about 60 percent of the U.S. population has been infected over the course of the pandemic.2“Sixty percent of Americans, including 75 percent of children, had been infected with the coronavirus by February, federal health officials reported on Tuesday — another remarkable milestone in a pandemic that continues to confound expectations.” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/26/health/coronavirus-antibodies-americans-cdc.html Likely a majority of cases are due to the highly contagious Omicron variants.

How well did democracies do?

Reported cumulative case rates by democratic countries vary widely but are quite high. The U.S. to date has reported a 244/1,000 population, a rate similar to or even lower than most Western European democracies, although more than double the Canadian rate. Sweden had fewer early restrictions and had a disease rate similar to the U.S., while Israel despite very high early vaccination had a very high rate of 439/1,000. Japan and Australia had much lower rates of disease, perhaps because they were island states and more isolationist. 

The high rates of infection in most democratic countries occurred despite relatively high rates of vaccination, recurring lockdowns, mask mandates, and major travel restrictions. 

How well did autocracies do?

Russia, despite an inferior vaccine and higher levels of vaccine hesitancy due to mistrust of government, has reported an infection rate of 123/1,000 people, or about half the U.S. rate but higher than the Canadian rate of 102/1,000. China, remarkably, only reported a rate of less than 1 per 1,000 people a very small fraction of the U.S. rate and by far the lowest in the world.3“In China, from 3 January 2020 to 5:46pm CEST, 3 May 2022, there have been 1,127,506 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 15,301 deaths, reported to WHO. As of 26 April 2022, a total of 3,364,169,286 vaccine doses have been administered.” https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn While it is hard to trust the data from either Russia or China as being honest and accurate, the countries had differing approaches to the extremes of their lockdowns. 

The strikingly low numbers of Chinese cases can’t be attributed to vaccination, since the Chinese vaccine was less effective than mRNA vaccines in preventing infection. As well, vulnerable elderly people frequently declined vaccination. Low case levels are also not due to genetic differences in populations either, since Hong Kong rates were higher than those in Canada. 

How do death rates compare?

The discrepancy in cumulative death rates is also very striking. The world average is 195 per 100,000 population. The U.S. rate is 299, Russia 253, Hong Kong 121, Canada 103, and China less than 4! Death rates are loosely linked to population age, rates of vaccination, quality of accessible health care, and to a lesser degree the type and duration of lockdowns. Even accounting for differences in truthful reporting and classification, there was a wide variation in death rates for both democracies and autocracies. 

The major outlier was China with a population of over 1.4 billion people with only about 15,000 total deaths reported, a trivial number.4“In China, from 3 January 2020 to 5:46pm CEST, 3 May 2022, there have been 1,127,506 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 15,301 deaths, reported to WHO. As of 26 April 2022, a total of 3,364,169,286 vaccine doses have been administered.” https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn Chinese President Xi has attributed this remarkably low rate to the benefits of their political system and their highly aggressive response to detected pockets of infection. Even if we accept that the Chinese have lied about many facets of the pandemic by a factor of 10,  including case rates and outcomes, there appears to be a marked benefit to how they have suppressed the effects of the pandemic, even if their method was abhorrent. Locking down tens of millions of people in Shanghai and beyond, often depriving them of the essentials of life and ignoring their suffering, is a very high and totally unacceptable price to pay. 

China after minimal disease burden over the past two years is finally having a large and rising second wave due to the two highly contagious Omicron variants. The Chinese are at particularly high risk since they likely have less effective long-term benefits of vaccination and a population with little naturally acquired immunity. Yet surprisingly as counts rise, with nearly 500,000 new cases since March, China reports very few symptomatic cases and only a handful of deaths.5China’s Covid death data obscure true impact of Omicron, experts say Again they attribute this to limiting spread very quickly and aggressively. This data is hard to believe given it is so incongruous with outcomes reported everywhere else in the world. Their words cannot be trusted; however, they likely have had better outcomes than most countries. Time will tell how many cities need to have further brutal lockdowns and the true course of their large second wave. 

However, if China can’t contain this wave of Omicron infection, it would further threaten worldwide supply chains and economies. We want them to contain their spike in cases but abhor the cost to freedom. 

We are at a very different stage of the pandemic now. Vaccination is much less effective in preventing infection but remains highly important in preventing hospitalization and death. Vaccination mandates have lost their benefit. There is a great demand to not overly restrict freedoms. China has shown that the most restrictive autocracy has likely had the best outcome but at a tremendous personal cost to freedom. 

The Ukrainians in response to aggressive Russian expansionism have taught us that we often have to fight with all our might and sometimes our lives for what we hold dear. It is our freedom, our democracy, our rule of law. Taken as a whole, democracy is better than bad actor autocracy. 

However, even in democracies such as Canada, we have to be ever vigilant. Governments in an overly paternalistic way may attempt to limit harm by excessively limiting freedoms especially when politically expedient. 

Louis Brandeis, the highly regarded U.S. Supreme Court justice summed up the risks, even in democracies, of allowing our freedoms to be curtailed: 

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

Sign up for FREE and receive The Hub’s weekly email newsletter.

You'll get our weekly newsletter featuring The Hub’s thought-provoking insights and analysis of Canadian policy issues and in-depth interviews with the world’s sharpest minds and thinkers.