The impacts of infectious disease outbreaks go well beyond their immediate health effects, disrupting social norms and social cohesion, political stability, and undermining public trust. The COVID-19 pandemic, as a result, brought many of these sociopolitical ramifications to the forefront, spurring scholars to examine how rising epidemics have the potential to alter political environments. A new study from Ore Koren and Nils Weidmann explores the political consequences of zoonotic disease outbreaks in several African countries. What their findings uncover is a troubling connection between public health crises and increased political unrest.
Phase one of the study deep explores outbreaks such as Ebola, H1N1 and Lassa. It draws on a detailed database that monitors the political, economic, and social views of people in their respective African nations. This is the first database to include a new dimension – insights into respondents’ levels of trust in local, state, and federal political leadership and institutions. In their 2021 article, Koren and Weidmann argue that infectious disease outbreaks tend to exacerbate existing political divides. This, in turn, increases the fragility of the regions impacted.
The Link Between Health Crises and Political Instability
Looking back, we can see that the effects of pandemics on human society have been nothing short of dramatic. The Black Plague and Spanish Flu pandemics are prominent examples. Each resulted in profound societal change. Koren and Weidmann’s research shows that modern pandemics have a deep impact on politics, especially where social unrest is already a concern.
Based on their study, they argue that the effects of infectious disease outbreaks are not limited by national boundaries. “Thus, the effect does not travel across borders,” remarked Weidmann. As Cohen’s comment indicates, political consequences after massive health catastrophes tend to be very localized.
COVID-19 has underscored a key point. It’s a reminder of how even the most well-intended public health emergencies can erode trust in the government. This distrust often stems from real or perceived mismanagement or lack of a sufficient response to the crisis and can result in increased political unrest.
Strategies for Preserving Political Trust
Koren and Weidmann highlight the necessity of integrating public health strategies with measures aimed at preserving political trust during health crises. Effective communication and transparent decision-making are crucial in maintaining the legitimacy of governmental institutions. “Governments should integrate trust-preservation strategies into their epidemic response plans and make sure their decision-making is transparent, and communication is clear and consistent,” Koren stated.
Based on their findings, the researchers argue that health departments should engage with community leaders and local intermediaries early on during public health emergencies. Governments have the ability to reinforce the trustworthiness of public institutions. This method is in addition to promoting new partnership between government agencies and the public. Weidmann emphasized the importance of rapid engagement: “During a health crisis, policymakers should rapidly engage with community leaders and trusted intermediaries to reinforce the legitimacy of public institutions.”
Implications for Policymakers
The ramifications of Koren and Weidmann’s findings are huge for policymakers, not just in the U.S., but all over the world. Above all, when mounting a response to any health emergency, this study demonstrates that maintaining political trust has to be part of the plan. As outbreaks continue to evolve, governments need to implement strategies that not only tackle the immediate health concerns but safeguard public confidence.
Policymakers need to be aware that the potential for increased political polarization exists in times of public health emergencies. They must make affirmative efforts to avoid these impacts. This tactic is all about building trust through conversation with different types of political players. It prevents public health measures from being perceived as inequitable or unjust.
