Corona And the End Of Globalism

WHEN Donald Trump gave his 'end of globalism' speech at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in September last year, the first reports of Corona virus were still two months away. In a stacatto and forboding tone, Trump told the world the future did not belong to globalists. "Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first," he had said, adding that America had the most powerful army in the world that could defend its wealth and spirit. Trump seems to have failed by his own standards. Today, the number of those dead of Corona in the United States of America (USA) is more than any other nation in the world making it the hardest hit global hotspot of the pandemic.

Ironically, the context of Trump's attack on globalism was China - for having deceived the United States into losing millions of jobs and 15 trillion dollars in trade over the last quarter-century of globalisation. The world has since come to a grinding halt in its fight against the China-born Corona pandemic. Much of travel - both domestic and international - stands suspended, factories are shut, and supply chains are hit. All economic activity is on a drip, stock and flow numbers are being compared to the post-WW-II Great Depression, and a recession bigger than the 2008-09 financial crisis looks imminent. Naturally so.

Corona has impacted every aspect of life - both public and private - in ways that would subject of study and analysis for some time to come. Most of these changes would be transient, like the missing maids from Indian homes. Others could be long-lasting, like the concept of 'work from home' given the benefits it brings to both employees - saved commute time and flexibility - and employers - reduced establishment costs. And then there would be some that could be called evolutionary from civilizational point of view.

Like what?

Is too much of democracy an impediment in times of crisis? A close look at nations worst hit by the Coronavirus - Italy, USA - and those that remained relatively unscathed - Singapore, Russia, even China - provides a contrast worth some crystal ball gazing. Are societies that are less democratic (to the extent that they can be easily disciplined) better at crisis management? Would societies get tempted into choosing lesser democracy for better governance in the future? Some study would definitely go into this thought post-Corona.

Second, is the connected world as it has evolved over the last five decades going to remain same for the next five? Would the visa and other restrictions that have been put in place on global movement lead to a new regime guiding flow of goods and services across borders? Would it be still easy for China to remain the shop floor of the world, given the price Lombardy has paid for its embrace of the middle kingdom? Just as the post-WW-II world evolved the concept of visas, would Corona engender a new way of travel, if not completely restrict it? Corona could turn Trump's economic 'End of Globalism' into a larger pandemic.

Third, would capitalism survive the way we have known it in recent times? How do the free market Ayatollahs see the signing of the Korean-war era Defence Production Act by which Trump asked General Motors and Ford to produce ventilators instead of cars? To help a family member in need of medical attention past week, I dialed a few private practitioners only to realize most of them chose to self isolate to save themselves from the disease, even as doctors in the public sector were literally dying in the line of duty. Is the invisible hand of the State in fact the most visible institution saving the world?

Fourth, does a recession also need to spell civilizational rigor mortis? Writing on the economy a few months back, I had noticed how six percent growth was being called anaemic by experts. The same experts might be calling us already dead! But are we? The WhatsApp memes of Eiffel Tower becoming visible from India Gate notwithstanding, would the world have made the choice between economy and climate on its own? Estimates put climate costs due to natural calamities on the world at between 3-5 per cent of global GDP annually already. The cleaning up of Ganga due to reduced Anthropomorphic footprint might have saved more than the entire expenditure on all Ganga Action Plans since Rajiv Gandhi! Isn't that a compensation worth accounting for in the GDP calculations?

That brings me to my final point. In the same piece on the economy, in the context of global slowdown I had pondered over whether capitalism could be imbued with the spirit of Gandhi's idea of trusteeship - what in recent times been called 'stakeholder capitalism' in America, though with limited practice. The industry is itching to get back to full-scale operations. Bajaj group's Rajiv Bajaj wrote an op-ed a few days back berating the government for thinking of citizens as fools to not take care of themselves. He forgot if the contagion was about smarts, America would not have been the worst sufferer.

Like most Black Swan events, the Corona pandemic is going to provide civilizational choices - both physical and metaphysical. Till we make those choices, here's a thought: Today is Easter Sunday which brings to an end the period of Lent during which much of the Christiandom undergoes fasting as a way of life. Hindus fasted through nine days of Navratra past month, and April end would see the Muslim brotherhood observing Ramzan. Wise men across cultures and religions have found fasting integral to rejuvenation and good health. Corona restrictions - both local and global - perhaps could be that forced fasting that might just end of rejuvenating us. Enjoy the lockdown till it lasts.