Politically, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing schisms and tensions, as well as revealing new ones.
The nature of Australia’s federation, once
thought to be relatively centralised, appears more State-based than envisaged
by the Constitution; and Tasmania, whose COVID experience has been
comparatively easy, is finding that being locked in (as opposed to locked down)
comes with its own unique political challenges. However, arguably the most
significant political aspect of the pandemic has been the blurring of lines
between domestic and international politics. Tasmania, far from being the
master of its own destiny, finds itself impacted, both positively and
negatively, by Australian and international factors beyond its control.
It is nonetheless also worthwhile exploring
some of the issues that are uniquely international, Australian and Tasmanian.
Looking back
Historically, international crises, such as
war, have often led to greater post-conflict cooperation. Examples include the
creation of the (arguably flawed) League of Nations at the end of World War 1,
and the establishment of the United Nations (UN) and a number of important,
human rights-based treaties at the end of World War 2. There was some hope,
that in the age of globalisation, characterised by a smaller, interconnected
world, that a global pandemic might be the catalyst for greater global
cooperation.
Instead, what we have witnessed is an increase in nationalism, a
rise in what was already a growing distrust in global institutions such as the UN
and the World Health Organisation, and, perhaps most disturbingly of all, an
unwillingness or inability (it’s not always clear which) from the
industrialised, developed world, to offer greater assistance to developing
countries that have, or will, suffer the most from this pandemic. An integral
part of the post-Cold War order was to shrink the gap between the so-called
global north and global south, yet COVID-19 has revealed that the divide
between global have and have-nots remains.
National focus
More locally, the pandemic has revealed
tensions in Australia’s federation. The nature of Australia’s more centralised federal
structure, especially when compared to the United States, for example, means
that in times of national crisis, such as war or natural disasters, Australians
have sought guidance and leadership from the national government. In turn, the
capacity of the Commonwealth government to act as a source of comfort and
reliable information has lent it a degree of legitimacy. The pandemic has
impacted on this understanding in two notable ways.
In the early years of federation, the States
remained the dominant actors in Australia. It wasn’t until after the end of the
Second World War that the Commonwealth started to assume more authority in a
variety of public policy areas, so much so that Canberra became the centre of
political power in Australia almost by stealth. The States did, however,
maintain primary responsibility in the area of public health, so when
interstate travel started to pose a threat to the wellbeing of Australians, States,
and notably powerful States in Victoria and NSW, against the wishes of the
Federal Government, closed their respective borders, undermining long held
perceptions about the nature of political power in Australia.
Second, data from the University of
Tasmania’s ‘Tasmania Project’ from 2020 revealed that Tasmanian government sources, including information from Premier
Peter Gutwein and local health authorities, was relied on much more than
information from Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Indeed, more Tasmanians said they relied on information
from the World Health Organisation (WHO) as said they relied on information
from the Prime Minister. Again, while Australians have been generally apathetic
about the gradual transfer of authority to Canberra, this newly assumed power
by Australian States might not be readily conceded post-pandemic.
Finally, Tasmania finds itself in a
somewhat unique situation. Undoubtedly benefiting from geographical realities,
Tasmania’s border closures have been both comparatively easy to monitor and,
based on public health measures as they relate to COVID, also very successful.
But while not locked down, Tasmanians have found themselves essentially locked
in. For a State that has become increasingly interconnected to the outside
world, be it via exports and imports, education and cultural exchanges, and
tourism, such isolation can be unsettling.
But more than this, the pandemic has
demonstrated a number of political realities. First, increased interconnectedness,
while having numerous upsides, also has drawbacks, including reliance on other States
and countries for essential goods and services. Second, although it is
important in liberal democratic polities, such as Tasmania and Australia, for
government to claim control in times of crisis, the pandemic has demonstrated
that what was once a clear demarcation between domestic and international
politics not only no longer exists, but that national and State governments, in
an age of globalisation, are increasingly beholden to events and circumstances
beyond their control.
Dr Matt Killingsworth is Head of Politics and International Relations at the University of Tasmania. This
article was written as part of a series to mark Social Sciences Week.