Leading in Times of Coronavirus: a Winning Global Liberal Response

There is little room for partisan politics these days and criticism is simply not enough to get through. In fact, the popularity of some incumbent leaders has surged (unless they have been disastrous or visibly chaotic managers) — a natural consequence of a rally-round-the-flag effect. However, this sense of quasi-unity should not fool anyone. What we are living these days is actually very political and, once the crisis (it’s health component to be precise) is over, the partisan underpinnings will become crystal clear, in managing the economic crisis. Political parties’ narratives will seek to leverage the pandemic to win hearts, minds, and votes. E-voting solutions will alter some political plans (campaigning will also suffer adjustments, with elections delayed for months), and so will public perception on crises leadership and management, from governments and opposition parties.

A related question is what is needed for liberal parties to emerge as the winners of this crisis: not just for themselves, but for citizens, the society as a whole, for global liberal solutions and the (still global and status quo) liberal-democratic model. I will seek to highlight some points that centrist, mainstream, liberal politicians and decision-makers more broadly should take into account and hopefully internalize. Winning involves leadership and management, inspiration and solutions, doubled by swift action (do and be seen doing) - one cannot win without this combination of form and substance, the only sustainable way to gain and keep trust and manage hope.

This is valid for everyone in the liberal-minded ecosystem, from parties to political foundations, from youth to women organisations, as well as global or regional liberal networks. More than even, a global networked exchange — and an agility to adapt and adopt good solutions - are necessary. Resilience is the mot du jour, let’s build up liberal individual, community, country and global resilience in front of the twin health and economic crises, and lead by example, initiative, energy and solutions. In a nutshell, it’s leading time, doubled by good management by liberals in power, as well as for responsible solutions and alternatives for liberals in opposition.

Now, back to the macro-view. For some, this crisis is the triumph of expertise. During hard times, one needs a steady hand, not an untested solution. Is there time for innovation, except in the case of vaccines? Yes, on the economic front, the 4IR was coming anyway and so was a cyclical crisis, this black swan crisis is an opportunity to define the new social contract. A stressed, strained opportunity, but an opportunity nonetheless. And who defines it first and gets “copied”, earning widespread global adoption, will win, whether its liberals or populists-authoritarians. An argument can be made that experience will matter again for electoral politics and that fresh faces will have to confront increased scrutiny. But this is only the personalized side of politics. I think it would be a terrible mistake to consider that the populists are no longer an electoral threat. Or that authoritarians, now hitting the ground running, projecting speed and control — in short, iron hand efficiency — , don’t want to replace our model. In fact, in remaining democracies, we could see even a combination of radical right and radical left forces gaining prominence and increasing their vote share in the aftermath of the crisis.

It’s the economy, s…cenario planners! We need to be efficient and empathetic, and prepare -us and our citizens — for at least for two traumatic years for societies.

Here is why. Substantively, public discussion these days — in Europe, but also beyond — gravitates around two main topics. The first one refers to state intervention. Everyone is asking for help; it is not only employees or trade unions, as one might expect. The SMEs and big businesses are arguing that the gravity of the crisis requires massive stimulus packages and financial injections to hard-hit industries. We will see many discussions about who deserves to be saved/bailed out and who does not. This happened only marginally during the 2008–2009 crisis. This time really is different. The observable implication of such behavior will be a certain “normalization” of an increased role of the state and an electorate more at ease with interventionism and a restricted role of the market (counter-liberal instincts). An economically left-wing electorate might come to dominate at least the first round of elections after the end of the pandemic. The radical left parties are currently not in great political shape, but this is, for sure, an opportunity for their message: the number of people being fired will reignite their fire. Hopefully liberals can work in coalitions with centrist versions of social-democrats. All these nationalist, populist or extreme political predictable trends and threats can materialize unless others (e.g. liberals) succeed in integrating political energy and people needs into a bigger story.

The second word we have seen associated with the pandemic is nationalism. We have heard so many times, especially during the past two weeks, that everyone is on its own and that European (or global) solidarity is gone (not true!). Obviously, all these are exaggerations, but what is obvious is that Europe, for example, lacks, for the moment and with very few exceptions now in a “war-declared economy”, the capacity to produce masks and ventilators within its own borders (same for other continents and/ or regions). It has to import them from China, Turkey or other (mostly Asian) countries (great for these countries, it’s not a criticism but an indirect praise — but not so great for the rest of us). So, the way people connect crisis preparation and rules of supply and demand (in liberal economics), will also matter, a new wave of (justified?) patriotism is rolling too. “Some produce, some buy, we don’t need to all produce the same stuff” is very easy and the obvious thing to do during normal times, but a real drama these days. “We need our OWN this and this”, people will think after this crisis, as a pandemic lesson. Autonomy, patriotism, and self-sufficiency will be employed to alleviate the fears of those for whom nationalism is still a dirty word. But make no mistake, a greater conversation will happen in the West about economic and strategic vulnerabilities. Entire industries will be reshored and this will leave a mark on economic globalization and global values chains. The radical right parties will be in pole-position to electorally benefit from these changes.

Now some good news, there is hope:

What both the radical left and right, just like populists and nationalists, are missing is a full story — and doable, sustainable, solutions. Their simplistic solutions are typically mono-causal and lack a positive and hope-driven twist. Again, finding the balance between extreme tendencies should be the essential task for liberal —and more widely mainstream — politicians (or should we say, even better, Statesmen and Stateswomen, politicians is a “dirty/ toxic” word). While emphasizing their credentials and experience, the latter should not dismiss these trends/fears, but integrate them into a bigger story, one about how communities/ institutions/ countries/ regions can leave the crisis behind and bounce back. This requires clear and empathetic communications of solutions, and a lot more work on the ground, for the moment online (e-leadership, to stick to health safety rules): “I feel you and I know what we have to do to get out of this together”.

This is not new, but the pandemic should be a catalyst for reckoning. Old-style globalization is living its final days, whether we like to admit it or not. Trump’s US (we will see what happens in November’s — or postponed — elections) has abandoned it and Europe — leading or as part of a like minded global coalition — will have to come up with its own answer. Obviously, free trade and globalization have an overall positive impact, there is no arguing here, but a lot of disgruntled citizens will be looking for scapegoats or new “enemies of the nation/ people”, from banks to other “more-than-less fortunate” organizations in the new crisis. The problem emerges when looking at distributional effects — some really believe that opening borders and economies has put them into a worse-off situation. The challenge for the liberal forces will be to preserve as much as possible from the old order while selling the tweaks as revolutionary steps to the public (LEAD THE CHANGE IN THE LIBERAL ORDER, DON’T ALLOW IT TO BE DEMONISED AND REPLACED, LEADING US INTO THE UNKNOWN or A “RETURN TO THE JUNGLE” — to paraphrase Churchill, liberal-democracy may be the worst or an imperfect model, but it is still the best one invented so far).

Charisma plays a part. Some personal political charm would come in handy in this context, and some liberal, national and global, leaders have the opportunity to lead more than the average based on their natural gifts or extensive training. In any case, the liberals need a new narrative about internationalization and globalization, that should have both economic and cultural dimensions. This includes an overdue discussion about how to deal with migration and refugees in Europe and, more broadly, a consistent policy towards Africa and a cooperative response to the “Asian Century”. Also, liberals need to have continuity and adaptation plans for the world’s — or regional — major plans from the EU Green Deal to UN SDGs.

Life also has to go on, and also some, if not most, priorities should continue, a full global reset in objectives and attention management is not needed. The crisis for example should be no excuse for less progress on women empowerment. Does my 1,5 years old daughter, to give a personal example, now have to wait 120 years instead of an absurd, WEF documented, 100 years, to achieve gender equality? No, and the crisis should accelerate what needs to be done also on values. Amid scarcity of resources (a fight for each “budget” or “aid and investment penny”) and demonizations of all kinds, we need to set the record straight on WHAT SHOULD REALLY MATTER — with words that work and proper framing and reframing — in the coming war on ideas (from country models to new world order debates). Whoever defines and pushes first for what the new normal should look like, will also shape it. Let it be liberals.

In Europe, this reframing necessarily involves an empowering narrative about the future of the EU. Asking for a bigger role for the EU in crisis-management is not the most intelligent thing to do these days in the absence of a new integration story; or, in the alternative, we will frustrate citizens, by asking things from the European Commission while this institution does not have the powers to implement all our stated needs (an adjustment is in order to manage expectations well on who is doing what). If the pandemic is compared to a war, then a lot of footwork is necessary to bring home a source of urgency and channel it towards more bureaucratic build-up, in a good sense, of a smarter swifter version. Most importantly, the EU should be portrayed as a source of solutions, not as an additional headache. Controversial projects should be reworked or put on hold, or reframed starting with new economic and social crisis needs. For example, it is not clear whether the EU can afford a vitriolic debate about the European Green Deal: if, in a Europe with millions and millions of people laid off because of the pandemic-induced recession, more belt-tightening will be asked from the working/middle-class, then the populists and centrifugal forces will prevail.

Individual solutions will not be groundbreaking, but the whole package has to be. The revolution of the center will require first and foremost a new type of engagement with the voters, one synchronized with these turbulent times and their yearning for stability and hope. A more humane and empathetic communication will be necessary to rebuild trust in leaders and institutions and help heal the fractures of the past. Even if austerity will be doomed as an economic solution, a more austere (“responsible” rewording?) behavior of the leaders will have to become the norm — in fact, politics will have to be more aligned with a regained sense of public (basic) morality. The challenge is how to present this new normal as an interim situation, for hope management, and then return asap and consistently to growth (concrete growth, in pockets and opportunities, not GDP percentages). This requires a wider talk in the liberal ecosystem on liberal economic solutions in the age of the emergency / crisis State.

For liberals in power or in opposition, the lesson is the same: dare to be different and dare to make the first move. Do not be apologetic and/ or defensive, be willing to slay a few sacred cows to gain attention and credibility. Again, who is able to define the problem has the advantage of having the credible solution. Rather than sweep the problems of the old liberal order under the carpet, the liberal parties should directly confront them and have the willingness to work with their civic and intellectual ecosystem to re-imagine their electoral offer and to present it to the voters so that they will fall in love again with values, vision and a new normal good society. Love and solidarity can (and I am confident will) trump hate and demonization, but this is not a given, we must work for such an outcome together. Liberal International, ALDE, Renew Europe, ELF, Naumann and other Foundations, INLW, IFLRY, and all network partners, you/ we are up to the task.

The END (of the beginning :) ).