Social, Political, Economic, and Psychological Aftereffects COVID-19
By: Vinod Bhardwaj
Tags: Job Loss, Covid 19 Crisis, Racism, Inequality, Political

The outbreak of the worldly spreading COVID-19 was not merely a health issue, as to the misfortune of millions worldwide; the virus was a shattering event for economies, public policies, international politics, and world trade. Besides, the pandemic’s complex consequences targeted individuals and vulnerable communities in unexpected ways. The virus does not see race, religion, color, caste, creed, language, or borders before striking.

Governments worldwide encountered hard decisions as to whether it is obliged to support the individuals and social groups negatively influenced by the pandemic. Some countries took action early, supporting those who lost their jobs in the pandemic and offering help to the vulnerable sections in society and economy. Other governments shared responsibilities with the private sector and NGOs. In contrast, the third type of government transferred the entire burden of loss and vulnerability to the threatened groups through a public policy of silence and negligence. Out of this variety of approaches, COVID-19 posed tough questions for public policy and social justice.

On the economic level, the pandemic has created lots of venues for research. How to get out of this crisis and type of policies are better situated to handle the situation and its aftermath. The health system’s status and its fragility. The resilience of the current world order and the rising de-globalization move, etc.

On the level of the political and international relation, the crisis is likely to reshape the whole world order, with the expected rising tensions between China and the USA, the democratic versus autocratic regimes, Iran and Saudi and their ability to handle the crisis, etc. On the social level, women who are now dedicated more to home due to the virus were exposed to domestic violence. Xenophobia and racism broke in different spots of the globe against foreign workers sharing the limited share of jobs, in addition to ethnic and religious fanaticism pointing fingers and exchanging accusations for the spread of the mysterious disease. House arrest was a weapon against the political dissident; now, it has become a life condition.

We stand at the cusp of a new era perhaps in which we shall take such interventions and surveillance for granted as our very bodies are subject to regulation, and apps map our movements. In the name of a larger cause, we have voluntarily submitted ourselves to the uncertain tenderness of state pastoralism. The virus has precipitated an internalization of deference to governmentality. There is dissent, of course. Those who resist the restrictions — masks, rules of social distancing — for libertarian reasons are heroes to their own and the objects of ridicule to others. Times like these generate a notion of end-time, which merely reflects the myopia of thinking with the present. Thinking from within the horizons of a situation does not lead to useful prophecies.

Fundamental questions determine how people experience lockdown: does one have a job, a home of one’s own, food on one’s plate, access to public health? We are back to the basic needs of human survival: food, clothing, and shelter. What is significant in this conjuncture is a sure limited fusion of horizons, a genuinely global feeling of an ordinary human condition.

In India, state and capital’s excellent labor abandonment had generated laborers’ scenes walking and cycling a few thousand kilometers to get back home during the lockdown. The informal economy’s impact has been profound, and it will take us a few years to come to an understanding of the effects on employment and livelihood. At the same time, we may romanticize the human spirit’s indomitable resilience. It is important to remember that sentimentality towards the poor and their condition has been a feature of postcolonial societies. This reflects states and elites’ inability to find lasting solutions for an inscriptive inequality endemic to our communities.

The economic consequences are likely to last into the recovery, especially for low-wage jobs, those just entering the labor force, and those nearing retirement. How local, state, and federal governments responded to the pandemic may influence elections, from who engages politically, who registers to vote, who votes, or how they vote. To what extent do these effects differ by race, ethnicity, gender, geography, and social class?

How will disparate health and economic outcomes across the states contribute to political engagement changes, partisan identification, polarization, access to voting, or attitudes toward safety net programs and redistribution? Many jobs deemed essential have low wages and few benefits, such as home health aides, nursing assistants, delivery workers, farmworkers, grocery, and food processing workers.

To what extent have public attitudes toward low-wage workers, people of color, and migrants changed in the aftermath of the pandemic? To what extent did the pandemic contribute to an increase in xenophobia and racism? How has divisive rhetoric from politicians and the media affected stereotypes about the poorest of the poor? How has the pandemic changed public opinion regarding migrants?

The pandemic forced a rapid shutdown of the regular social interaction patterns that fuelled economic and social activities. Most of the population has experienced disruptions in everyday life’s normal rhythms due to mandated social distancing, with the likelihood of continuing disorders in work, school, social, and family relationships. In response, the infrastructures of education, health, social services. Faith-based organizations, government, criminal justice, the law, and many others that depend on interpersonal contact were forced to rapidly transform their practices, moving some online, delaying or postponing others, and shutting some down altogether. The consequences of these decisions are not yet understood but are likely to be long lasting, in part due to differential access to digital technology. Which populations, regions, organizations, or institutions have or are likely to prove more resilient? What short- and long-term consequences in institutional and social arrangements can we expect?

I do not have any answers sofar but have faith in humanity that this shall also pass.