AnthroPolitique

The consequences and outcomes of the 2014 Ebola epidemic are still fresh in the minds of public health, medical professionals, and the general public, worldwide.

Now in 2016, we are faced with the fear of a potential epidemic stemming from the Zika virus, which has made its way to 25 countries (and counting) in 2016.  The question the world must now pose, once again, is: are we prepared?

There are two ways to view this question. One concerns the capacity for a proper international response to epidemics. The other concerns our ability to prevent epidemics by preventing the spread of our modern “germs”. This second matter involves not only containing and combating disease, but developing a means of a stable international system for prevention.

Fortunately, the threat of the spread of Zika has emerged with recently-learned lessons from the 2014 Ebola epidemic. To answer the first aspect of this question, the Ebola epidemic quickly revealed the failures of local, national, and transnational health systems. WHO has responded to this issue by developing a bigger and better arsenal against disease: international cooperation for an effective response to international health crisis.

The WHO response to Zika is detailed as the following:

• Define and prioritize research into Zika virus disease by convening experts and partners.
• Enhance surveillance of Zika virus and potential complications.
• Strengthen capacity in risk communication to help countries meet their commitments under the International Health Regulations.
• Provide training on clinical management, diagnosis and vector control including through a number of WHO Collaborating Centres.
• Strengthen the capacity of laboratories to detect the virus.
• Support health authorities to implement vector control strategies aimed at reducing Aedes mosquito populations such as providing larvicide to treat standing water sites that cannot be treated in other ways, such as cleaning, emptying, and covering them.
• Prepare recommendations for clinical care and follow-up of people with Zika virus, in collaboration with experts and other health agencies.

WHO’s Zika response has no doubt been presented much more quickly than in the case of Ebola. However, as in 2014, we are quickly learning that a swift “response” to crisis is not enough. Planning for enhanced surveillance, capacity-building, training, and clinical care after in a state of emergency does not provide for effective containment and management of disease.

Within the international duty to protect, is the duty to prevent. The only way to properly prepare for the next epidemic in an effective and timely manner is through prevention. Viruses and bacteria are not new. Neither are their consequences.  Similar to Ebola, the presence of Zika is not unknown. As noted on the WHO Fact Sheet for Zika, the virus has been recorded in humans since 1952 in Uganda – over six decades ago. As mentioned in Why International Issues Must be Addressed with Cross-Disciplinary Responses: The Case of Ebola, many of the public health issues now of international concern are not newly discovered, but instead have received inadequate attention.

The lack of attention in addressing potential public health concerns such as Ebola, and now Zika, has undoubtedly resulted in missed opportunities for prevention. Without an effective international plan for prevention, we will remain consistently behind in combating global public health issues. The lesson learned from Ebola was how to plan and prepare for a proper response. Zika now teaches us that in order to reach a proper and effective response, a transition must take place: to properly prepare for emergency, we must do our best to prevent it from happening in the first place.

As the world’s leading international entity, the United Nations (UN) has set a precedence for defining human rights. The act of defining human rights and basic freedoms as inherent and for all human beings is a first step in making the protection of human rights a reality. However, despite introducing a lengthy list of “rights” in the thirty Articles of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNHR), the UN, as have other international organizations, has only hinted as to how such rights will be effectively safeguarded. Coining the concept of “human rights” is a great feat, but one that places much responsibility on the international community if such rights are to be recognized. In light of very current issues such as the plight of immigrant and stateless individuals, one can only wonder how the world will take a stand to support the rights of all individuals, both in times of peace and in times of crisis.

Not considering the effectiveness of the UN in ensuring the human rights of all people (which will be discussed in a separate post), the questions that are left unanswered by the UNHR, among others, are:

1. Given that rights are intangible, what really can be considered a “right” and where is the line to be drawn?
2. Who is considered part of the “human family” in our international system as it stands and why are all humans not included?
3. What can be done to make sovereign states act to secure human rights for all individuals?
4. What role must the UN play in making Universal Human Rights a reality?

With the new inauguration of Governor of Maryland, Lawrence J. Hogan, Jr., post-election day woes and questions have become high profile. Low voter turnout in the recent election has resulted in an unhappy public response to the actions taken by Governor Hogan. Governor Hogan’s unfavorable strategies are reflective in slashing budgets and reversal of existing policies using a purposefully “political” approach to state affairs.

A relatively accurate argument could be made that Governor Hogan’s actions can be placed along with the number of other politicians that no longer fulfill their promises. The consistent bickering between the two prime political parties and lack of opposing parties due to lobbying and power politics makes major change is unlikely to come – and if a change in policy is effectively agreed upon, it will be limited to non-effective in scope as with the case of Obamacare.

Before I begin on the rant of the “failed dreams” left by US politicians, I would like to point out the following: the actions of Governor Hogan cannot be considered anything but expected. Although Hogan attacked the administration of former governor Martin O’Malley-Brown as one that “has crushed the middle class with record tax increases that we don’t need, don’t want, and simply cannot afford”, his campaign made it clear that Hogan was not one familiar with the actual needs of the middle class. If one chose to “meet Larry“, it becomes clear that the now current Governor of Maryland hinged his campaign on his experience in politics. Upon further reading, it seems that the only connection Larry Hogan has made with the common middle class Marylander is that he has a family and is “fed up with policies as usual” as described on his Change Maryland website. Governor Hogan did not make clear any key action plan towards change in favor of middle class interests. Instead, the success of his campaign relied on “relating” to Marylanders through a common frustration with the status quo of Maryland politics.

Recognizing that Governor Hogan’s campaign was hardly convincing, one may ask, how did Governor Hogan get elected? With posing this question, we must now center attention on the Maryland voter. According to the Maryland State Board of Elections reports, a total of 1,655,375 of 3,701,834 registered voters (44.72% ) voted in the 2014 Gubernatorial election, as opposed to the  50.38% of 3,468,287  registered voters in 2010 recorded to have voted in the polling place, not to mention provisional or absentee voters.

Low voter turnout in the 2014 Maryland Gubernatorial elections is representative of the lack of public involvement in US politics on a national level. Without voter involvement, the disheartening reality is that
polls no longer reflect the public view and politicians no longer support individual needs of the general middle class society. To make matters worse, in many cases, those who do vote select a candidate based off of propaganda and media, not based off of the knowledge of what that candidate will provide to them.

What messages does that leave for our society? – don’t ask questions, don’t expect change, don’t hold your politicians accountable, there is no worth in educating yourself on politics. US citizens have made it a habit to vote only if there is a pressing reason to do so (such as in the Obama election) and have adopted a culture of complacency with current politics. In a system in which politicians will not necessarily act in the interest of the general public, the trend of low voter turnout and public ignorance of one’s role in government must be eliminated. No change will come if it is left in the hands of people who have the power to vote for change and choose not to do so.

Since the end of World War II, the spread and support of democracy has, quite literally become a focus and key initiative of the international community. However, attempts to democratize has in a number of cases only been partially successful, contributing in the long-run to the further decline of once aspiring democratic states. Failures of democratic implementation can, among other situational factors, be linked to lack of public support for the new government and instability. Each of these factors prevents successful democratization following democratic implementation. Even with the involvement of international organizations in supporting democratic implementation on a global level, key elements of democracy have all but vanished and have prevented prospects for stable and successful democracies. Populism is one such element.

Populism is the idea that a government should act to serve the interests of its people, or in other words, populism “appeals to the masses”. This should not be misconstrued to mean that populism is necessarily associated with communism, leftism, or any of the like. In political science and international relations, it is commonly said that states act first in the interest of the state itself. The reality is that states often fail to address or even acknowledge the interests of the people within its borders. The shifting of focus to a state’s people is key in developing policy that allows for stability and can win over the support of its citizens.

Yes, there are flaws in populism. Populism has been associated with violence and instability due to the rise of action amidst public mobilization which in some cases leads to high tension and aggression. However, even the United States, a state that prides itself on its economic, social, and political might, faces a cycle of unaddressed social issues, obscured and media, and a spiraling decline in public knowledge and activism that have the potential to lead to social instability.

Today, even the world’s greatest democratic states exist as a democracy only in theory – the democracy of power politics, not democracy for the people. The US is therefore a powerful figure of stable “democracy” but by no means the symbol of a successful democracy. The key to developing successful democracies in a world centered on democratization in addition to issues of human rights and social progress lies in the following: in order for democracy and stability to be sustainable to successful, the system implemented must be one that appeals to the needs of the people it has been developed to serve.

For a more in-depth view of the “power of populism” in social stability, see Maintaining Balance in the US-Venezuelan Relationship after Chávez  for the Venezuelan example.

An opposing opinion:

“Pitchfork Politics.” Foreign Affairs. 3 Feb. 2015. Web. 3 Feb. 2015. <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141733/yascha-mounk/pitchfork-politics&gt;.