It is almost four years now since the world experienced an unprecedented and unexpected landmark social disaster that took the form of a health crisis. The competence of contemporary leaders globally was put to the test within the first two out of the four years. So far, one verdict can be passed about most of these leaders: they like to ‘go with the flow.’Â They like political correctness. And, like water, they prefer the path of least resistance. When it is convenient, they prefer to describe “grey” as white and at the same time as black; and they will find justification in each instance, no matter how illogical. Since the health crisis that rocked the world began, the confusion among the acclaimed world leaders have become so obvious in impact. The world is currently living with the consequences of their judgements and decisions.
The lack of preparedness of many contemporary leaders and low level of competence and courage to face true realities became evident from the knee jerk reactions and fire brigade responses to COVID-19 – the pestilence that assumed global proportions within weeks, beginning two months to the end of the year 2019. If anyone was in doubt that the world system was uncoordinated and broken, the outbreak and spread of this unprecedented pandemic was enough to dispel such a doubt. The fragility, weakness and vulnerability of the entire world quickly came to the fore, exposing the poor understanding of many individuals and groups of people who lay cheap claim to leadership.
Economists, politicians and charismatic activists took the stage, giving their own ideas and setting agenda – some conflicting – on how to respond quickly to the unusual emergency and safeguard people’s lives. Some resorted to the seemingly appealing sentiments of equality and fairness. The big tech added its own by setting up limits to free and objective exchange of information, under the guise of curbing misinformation. In the process, wedges were driven between institutions, nations, enterprises, cultures, families and friends. All of a sudden, people couldn’t travel across countries, airlines were barred from flying, schools ordered closed, religious assemblies put on hold and many essential services were restricted in a panicky response to an unusual crisis.
But, the first error began with the World Health Organisation, the global health competent authority that initially dismissed the possibilities of an epidemic going global, even when initial evidence pointed at potential global spread. Next was China, the very country from which the crisis ramified to the entire world. Then populism took over, with politicians singing discordant tunes to boost their local political capital. COVID-19 became an election gambit in some countries. Here, however, is their rallying point: their acclaimed but purported belief in science. Pro-restriction, pro-vaccination and pro-straitjacket communication took over. To show their unwillingness to take any stressful route, they simply narrowed down their responses: lockdown, nose mask, social distancing and jabs. Trust in leadership is easily evident in the willingness of the followers to follow voluntarily. While the draconian rules were applied on the populace, some world leaders indulged themselves in debauchery. Governor Gavin Newsom reportedly went out on dinner with a group of people when California was supposed to be under a lockdown. The misadventure that ended the tenure of Boris Johnson as UK’s prime minister was similar. He went on a drinking binge while purportedly visiting officials at work during the strictly enforced lockdown under his watch. As it turned out, the compliance fatigue that quickly set in betrayed the low level of trust in leadership all over. They didn’t have to worry. After all, the measures were forced on the people, not decided on the basis of any veritable feedback. It could be that the enforcement of those measures were taking a huge toll on the leaders mentally and intellectually. They tried to appear flexible. At least, there were one or two other options to cling on to, with less stress.
But trust political leaders; they found a way out. Get the jab, because it is science. But what science was it, and whose science, anyway? Was it the science of those research experts, the field physicians or that of the business world? We would have thought that those who truly believe in science would allow second opinions and put scientists at the forefront. We would later learn the hard way that most decisions taken were not out of sheer altruism as the populist leaders who like to be politically correct would have no space for alternatives. Only their way or the highway! Only the jab, and nothing else would do. That was their tacit and overt consensus. Once you get vaccinated, you are fine. But, one year after the onset of a global experiment, the world found itself living with the realisation that the vaccine solution was less of science but more of a motivation by pecuniary interest, politics and pure populism.
As it later turned out that one, two, three, four jabs have been found to fail to protect a single recipient, the door was reluctantly opened to therapeutics. Meanwhile, few big pharma operators have made fortune through ineffectual vaccines that had to be repeatedly administered in the vain hope of providing lasting protection to the recipients. And then came the time for emergency approval for some drugs. The helplessness of these political leaders became evident as we were later told that we may have to live with the pandemic and so we had to figure out how to cope, including trying out new medications. Very well said! But didn’t that seem like people have been forcefully misled and taken for a ride? The oligopolistic pharma industry actors have been having their day. Despite the mortalities and debilitations caused by vaccines that had no antecedents, forced on people, no one seems to bear responsibility for poor judgement, erroneous decisions and needles punishment of hapless majority.
The noise about variants and varieties was high-pitched within the first full year of the pandemic. Predictably, it soon died down. At least, the sporting industry was among those that showed very early that the long waiting was over. Tournaments were returning and stadia were becoming full again. Airlines were buzzing with full flight schedules. Maritime industry was coming back on stream and supply chains – long broken – were being restored. The year 2021 was a test run of the global recovery on economic and health grounds. It was also a pointer to the prospects in 2022, as it revealed the missteps of those who used the pandemic to introduce inhumane interventions in the name of solutions. As the world gradually rolled back the pandemic, opportunities came for the scientific community, particularly the medics, whose roles were usurped by carpetbaggers, to assert themselves professionally and to no longer allow themselves to be led by the nose.
It was important to resist the proponents of zero-sum solutions to hydra-headed problems. From the shoddy handling of COVID-19 by those laying claim to public offices, scientists should henceforth make their voices truly heard and should challenge parochial claims and solutions put forward by convenience-seeking, populist and sometimes timid leaders in politics, business and development community. The complexities of today’s world require decisions and actions based on more than slogans or few narrow lines of thought by some privileged individuals. More options are needed on the table to ensure more informed decisions and interventions. The world has lost so much in terms of lives and wealth in just two years as a result of a few people’s erroneous logics. These cannot afford to continue or be repeated in the future. More diverse viewpoints and action lines are needed. Those who are well informed need to be involved in fashioning out pragmatic and sustainable solutions in case of future emergencies. And what transpired during the COVID-19 pandemic should serve as an enduring lesson to be learnt, to avoid costly mistakes in the future.
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.comÂ
