An Interview Series on the Political Implications of the Pandemic
By Fabiana Natale and Gilles de Valk
For this interview series, Fabiana Natale and Gilles de Valk speak to experts from different backgrounds on the political implications of the COVID-19 pandemic in their respective fields. From their living rooms in France and The Netherlands, they will explore the (geo)political, security, and societal consequences of this pandemic. This interview series marks the launch of a new type of content for the Security Distillery, one which we hope can provide informative and entertaining analyses of an uncertain and evolving development in global politics.
In this first episode, we are interviewing Matthijs Lok, Senior Lecturer in Modern European History at the European Studies Department of the University of Amsterdam. He recently wrote a piece in which he examined the coronavirus from a historical perspective [1]. As this is the first interview of a larger series, we think it is important to first look at the pandemic from a historical point of view, but also to bridge the gap between social sciences and humanities.
On 6 May 2020, the historian and political writer Timothy Garton Ash asked in the Guardian: ‘What kind of historical moment will this turn out to be, for Europe and the world?’ [2] What do you think, Matthijs?
It seems like a lot of people around me are optimistic about the future, although these people tend to have a background in social sciences. As a historian, you tend to be a little more suspicious of how large historical events turn out, so I’m a bit more sceptical. I think the “corona crisis” is a reinforcement of existing trends, rather than a rupture with the past. Authoritarianism, nationalism, and other undemocratic developments that were already taking place seem to be enhanced. Even though some people think of it as a time of solidarity, we have seen friction within the EU between the Netherlands and Italy, for example [the Dutch were initially hesitant about proposed financial aid to southern European countries, which sparked criticism]. Regarding nationalist developments, it seems like there is an emphasis on national self-sufficiency, rather than international cooperation or cosmopolitanism. This trend had already emerged before the crisis if you look at United States President Donald Trump’s policies or the trade war with China, but now we have witnessed nationalist reflexes in countries like Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and Germany. This reinforcement of national self-sufficiency has not led to the exclusion of specific groups, but it can become that way.
You mentioned that you are not as optimistic, being a historian. Do you see similarities between the corona crisis and any historical event in particular?
We have seen moves towards nationalism and self-sufficiency after big crises before. The eighteenth century, for instance, was very much a time of commerce and free trade. After the French Revolution, which turned out very different from how the participants expected, you see a surge in nationalism and a focus on economic self-sufficiency, while the belief in international trade experienced a setback. Another period it makes me think of is the end of the nineteenth century, which was a period of globalisation. However, World War One caused another move towards national self-sufficiency. I would not compare the corona crisis to World War One, but generally speaking, you can see that crises can result in a more inward focus.
On the other hand, the corona crisis shows that some problems that seemed to be unsolvable can be solved. I’m thinking of “overtourism” in European cities such as Venice, Paris, and Amsterdam. At the same time, it seems like we are rushing less in our daily lives and the fact that we are travelling less can have a positive impact on the environment. Besides, it seems to have caused a revaluation of the public sector, especially the health, education, and law enforcement sectors.
You said that problems that were deemed to be unsolvable are being solved. But one could argue that they were solved and replaced by new problems and maybe even new threats. How has our perception of security threats changed since the start of the crisis?
I find it interesting to look at how people experience this crisis. When people look at the news they might think, ‘This situation is radical and unique.’ This is what you think when you are the midst of a crisis, while later on, historians will say that it was not that special after all and that there was actually a lot of continuity. Old problems and threats will reappear, but in a new form. We will just look at them from another perspective.
On the other hand, we are currently not talking about threats such as terrorism. There was a knife attack in south-eastern France on 4 April 2020, supposedly with a terrorist motive [3]. It hardly made it to the headlines, in the Netherlands at least, while it usually would have.
What worries me a little bit is that we are currently only looking at one single threat – this one giant enemy – and forgetting to look at other problems. Even though this reflex is understandable, there are other medical, but also societal problems. The crisis has a huge economic impact – think about the high unemployment rate in the United States. But there are also mental health issues and it can have a large impact on children. Besides, it might not be good that a very small group of medics seem to be running the country. But this is where historians come in: they can show us that we should not focus on one threat and that there are more problems, by putting it in a historical perspective.
Earlier we talked about the tension between northern and southern European states over solidarity and financial aid. In 2013, you wrote an article for the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad in which you discussed how the euro crisis had caused the East-West divide in Europe to be replaced by the North-South divide [4]. What are your observations on this divide during the corona crisis?
Firstly, I think the East-West divide is still there as well, as we can see for example with Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, and generally the self-proclaimed “anti-liberal” regimes. The strengthening of authoritarian rule in this context of emergency is not a surprise though. This is what this kind of crisis does: it reinforces the state’s power.
However, the North-South divide is also becoming deeper. My observation is that things have changed, especially since Brexit, and ‘the South’, with its now relatively larger population, has gained political weight and become more powerful.
Furthermore, countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, and France have been regarding themselves as the heart of the European development for a long time, but today they might even become the periphery of this project. And I think we can place the blame in part on those countries themselves, because often they have not understood the other member states’ perspectives, considering the position they were defending as the right one, until it turned out to be a minority.
The French government, for example, seems aware of the risk of becoming the odd one out and of the need to build alternatives to the French-German driving force. It is, therefore, assigning a growing importance to the development of new allegiances, such as with the Netherlands, in order to keep its position.
How will we look back at this event in fifty years?
Some people have almost become apocalyptic or religious about the perception of time, thinking that it will be either heaven or hell. But I think this sense of uniqueness will disappear in the coming months or years. It will find a place in our memories, people will talk about it to younger people who didn’t live through it, students will write their theses on it. I think it will be seen as less of a watershed than we do now.
We have talked about the past and future, let us go back to the present. On 1 May 2020, several humanities scientists wrote an article in NRC Handelsblad arguing that we need to involve historians more with policy responses to the crisis [5]. What lessons can we learn from historians and history?
Historians can put the crisis in perspective. People tend to focus on one problem, forgetting about other problems, which is of course understandable when people lose their loved ones. However, historians can help to remind us of the other aspects of society. At the same time, historians are very well aware that things are not self-evident and can change radically. Hence, they can show us that this is an extraordinary, but not necessarily a unique situation. From historical events, we can hopefully learn that we do not need the national reflexes of self-sufficiency.
What are your key observations in this pandemic?
The corona crisis is bringing both new issues and opportunities. On one side, besides the health crisis, trends such as nationalism and authoritarianism are being reinforced, which threatens the European project while emphasizing the shift of influence from the West towards Asia. However, societies are resilient and can take advantage of this situation to create new possibilities, like we are doing with IT. Those opportunities can also stem from the emergence of a suitable intellectual context, especially for academics, for new reflections on our societies.
Notes
[1] Lok, Matthijs (2020). ‘A Sublime Historical Event: The Corona Pandemic is also a Crisis in Our Perception of Time’. Netherlands Institute of Advanced Study. https://nias.knaw.nl/food-for-thought/food-for-thought-a-sublime-historical-event/.
[2] Garton Ash, Timothy (2020). ‘A better world can emerge after coronavirus. Or a much worse one’. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2020/may/06/better-world-coronavirus-young-europeans-democracy-universal-basic-income.
[3] No Author (2020). ‘Romans-sur-Isère: France launches terror probe after knife attack’. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52165522.
[4] Lok, Matthijs (2013). ‘Zuid-Europa is nieuw Oost-Europa’. NRC Handelsblad. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/09/14/zuid-europa-is-nieuw-oost-europa-1293034-a724362.
[5] De Graaf, Beatrice, Lotte Jensen, Rina Knoeff, and Catrien Santing (2020). ‘Historici moeten ook meedenken, juist nu’. NRC Handelsblad. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/05/01/historici-moeten-ook-meedenken-juist-nu-a3998484.
The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the interviewee and do not reflect those of the Security Distillery, the IMSISS consortium or its partners and affiliates.