I confess my surprise at the discipline and selflessness with which Spanish citizens carry the confinement to which they have been obliged for almost two months now. It would be better if their conduct obeyed their confidence in the recommendations of the authorities and the sources of information they access, and not simply as a consequence of fear of the virus or fines. In any case, confinement is all the response that governments around the world have found so far to this threat and the Spanish follow it strictly, better than anyone.
Although this is cause for celebration, I think it should also be an opportunity for reflection. Staying locked up at home for such a long period of time is not a small sacrifice. The freedom of an individual begins with the freedom of movement. Walking, moving from one place to another, is the first thing we do in life, before we are even aware of our being. All other freedoms come as a complement to this basic one. An inmate may see his sentence reduced to house arrest, but it is still a sentence. Because it is so elementary and primary, freedom of movement is so natural. All the great migratory waves of humanity were the result of the human instinct to move from one place to another in an eternal search for satisfaction.
Other articles by the author
Now is the time
Do we hate each other so much?
A new age
The end of American leadership
It is therefore convenient to ask ourselves what effects such a prolonged loss of that freedom can have and how this will affect all other freedoms. In short, to what extent our condition as free men and women can be degraded, to what extent we are making a sacrifice that can, in the long run, act to the detriment of the democratic societies in which we live. It is quite possible that, for survival reasons, we will have no choice but to do what we are doing. I do not doubt it. But even so, it would be opportune that, together with the health debate, another politician about our reality and our future would be generated.
It is possible and necessary to discuss what we do with our democracy at the same time that we discuss what we do with our health. We have to make sure that the government does not confuse our discipline with docility and that the "new normal" does not amount to a loss of our rights. There have already been signs around the world of the danger that the loss of freedom of movement may be exploited for the seizure of other freedoms. In the wake of the silence caused by the coronavirus, the Chinese government has increased the repression against the leaders of the protests in Hong Kong. In Lebanon, arrests of opponents have grown. Chile has postponed the constitutional referendum with which the government had compromised after months of protests. Even in the United States there is fear of a democratic setback, including the delay in the elections next November. Democratic candidate Joe Biden has publicly warned of the possibility that Donald Trump may try with the excuse of the health hazard.
The freedom of an individual begins with the freedom of movement. All the others are a complement to this
The suspension of an election is the maximum degree of degradation of our political system. South Korea, which voted in the midst of the pandemic with close to 70% participation, the largest in 30 years, is an example of how concern for health and for our democracy can be made compatible. Fortunately, today there are sufficient means and technology, at least in developed countries, to be able to vote without endangering citizens. "The global cause of democracy would be severely weakened if Western nations fail to hold free, fair and secure elections," states an editorial in The Washington Post.
Our democratic health requires us to continue voting, but not only; We need to continue exercising our rights to the maximum extent possible and enjoying our freedom with the minimum limits required to make it compatible with life. That is the responsibility and obligation of our governments. Our leaders must, of course, follow the instructions of the health experts in a situation of such high risk for the population. But that cannot be an excuse for the abandonment of political responsibilities or negligence; much less, for the unjustified reduction of our condition as citizens.
The current difficult health circumstances should not prevent each and every institution from fulfilling its obligations. The first, the Government, which is responsible for assuming the responsibility of directing and administering the country, advised by experts, as it should always be, but not replaced by them. Only the Government, not the experts, should be able to make balanced decisions that reconcile diverse interests in search of the common good. It is also up to the Government to create the appropriate political climate to structure society and promote solidarity and collaboration. It is the Government that has to promote dialogue and agreements with other forces in search of the greatest possible support for its measures.
It is up to the Government to assume responsibility for managing the country without being replaced by experts
It is the Government that corresponds to this, and not the opposition, whose role in a democracy is that of control and surveillance, that of analyzing the decisions of the Executive and criticizing or supporting them according to their criteria and before the eyes of the voters. , which will be pronounced later. Even in exceptional circumstances, the opposition cannot escape its fundamental obligation to be an alternative to the constituted Government. For that it exists.
As the media cannot give up constant criticism. I have not seen in the United States, with nearly 60,000 deaths from the virus, a reduction in criticism of Trump. The New York Times yesterday published on double page an analysis of the 260,000 words spoken by the president since the beginning of this crisis, with all its contradictions, inaccuracies and lies. Trump remains committed to administering the truth and fighting the alleged spread of hoaxes. When a government takes the authority to intervene in the content of the information, with different powers than the law places in the hands of any citizen, it is attacking the root of freedom of expression. The same as when it floods the public media with official truth.
We may have to remain locked up at home, but each one has to be in his place in the defense of our freedom and our democracy: citizens are not the vigilantes of their neighbors, Parliament must continue to be the place where the Government respond and the judges must continue with the essential procedures so that a situation of lack of protection and helplessness does not occur among the population. We have technical resources to make it so.
Any ruler, even a democratic one, has ever secretly dreamed of a paradisiacal scenario in which people remain silent in their homes and all institutions are silenced by force majeure. It is not the first time that political leaders have faced circumstances that make their power almost absolute. That's where everyone's height is checked. Historian Jon Meachan relates that one of the things that John Kennedy learned in the missile crisis was the need to impose limits on himself to the enormous power he had in his hands, including the red button. Instead, Trump's strategy, as Michael Gerson describes it, is to take advantage of his privileges —including that of constant television appearances— to divide the country, demonize the adversary and polarize the situation to such an extent that only two groups remain. : "Those who believe their version and those who conclude that there is no version that deserves to be believed."
You can follow EL PAÍS Opinion on Facebook, Twitter or subscribe here to the Newsletter.