SARS and governance

Crises put governments to tests. Valuable lessons can be obtained by observing how governments deal with them and how communities cope. Crises raise important questions about governance, to use a contemporary parlance. Governance simply means the state of the government or the act, or the process of governing. More important, it is the quality of government. The spread of SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) has raised the question of governance once more. In the recent past, most of the pundits were looking at the role of governance in socio-economic development. The interest was generated by the World Bank and other multilateral organisations that were impressed by the rapid economic development of East Asia and attributed it to a large part to governance or the high standard of government. Since then the literature on governance has been awash with criteria, conditions, role, and sustainability of governance. Accountability, neutrality, transparency, future-orientation, tough-mindedness, strong anti-corruption measures, commitment to improvement and pragmatism became the hallmarks of good governance. East Asia prospered because of good governance. Africa (minus, Botswana) floundered because of bad governance. Like globalization, governance has become a new mantra for the development gurus and the public policy experts. One could say, all the characteristics of "governance" can be easily subsumed under the good old phrase "administration". But why do we have such predilection for neologism? That's another paper.

The spread of SARS has created a new situation of uncertainty in a region that once became a by-word for rapid economic development. The issue of governance is important because, in retrospect, a more transparent and accountable Chinese government could have contained the crisis much earlier. Had the government acknowledged the fact that a new unnamed disease was creating havoc in South China (Guangdong) in November 2002 and had they solicited the help of WHO or consulted the Atlanta-based CDC, the disease would not have spread globally. It is more a case of crisis management than governance. In most instances, effective crisis management is founded on the bedrock of good governance.

How do we explain the behaviour of the Chinese government? It was around the same time, China was holding its famous Communist Party Congress, and so it did not want to admit the spread of disease to mar this grand occasion. It is quite possible. Like previous occasions, when local government leaders wanted to look good in the eyes of the central government and were reluctant to disclose unsavoury news. China was too proud to allow the WHO professionals who came to help. Misguided national pride?

The lessons from the Chinese example are clear. Lack of transparency, authoritarianism (hangover of the socialist command structure), hyper-nationalism and an arrogance fed by rapid economic growth (China, the sleeping giant, is going to rival US economic dominance by 2020, and so on) hamstrung China's ability to deal with this crisis effectively. Now the hyperbole of economic miracle has been replaced by the hyperbole of doom. The SARS crisis has been variously labeled as "Chernobyl of China" or "9/11 of China". The impact of the epidemic has been termed as severe. Yet on April 9, patriotic China Daily denounced the critics of Chinese authority as "anti-Chinese clique". It is only in late April China woke up to face the reality. On April 20 the government dismissed the health minister Zhang and the mayor of Beijing. On April 29 when China's new leader, Premier Wen Jiabao came to the SARS meeting in Bangkok organised by the leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), he said: "I come in humility" and apologised for the inconveniences caused to the ASEAN partners. This was surely a very good move -- both in terms of PR as well as sending a signal to the administration back home that the new authorities are different and are ready to be transparent. WHO experts were allowed back in, cooperation was extended. And now the schools in Beijing have reopened after a month of closure. Earlier after the government fired the health minister, it gave the charge of fighting SARS to the Deputy Prime Minister Wee Yi who made a name for efficiency and energetic leadership, extended collaboration with international agencies, it showed that China had opted for openness. China has now come clear in favour of transparency.

Taiwan was pretty much in a denial mode. Again arrogance undermined its governance. As of May 19, Taiwan had 344 cases with a death toll of 40; at the time of writing this paper on May 26 the death toll rose to 72 with total cases of 570 so far. One third of all those affected in Taiwan are from the medical community. As of May 26, the total number of cases in China stands at 5,316 and the nationwide death toll remains 315. Singapore's response to spread of SARS has been forthright, open and strong. Still the crisis is not over yet. On May 18 when it was waiting to be cleared by WHO, a new case was reported. Attempts are underway to find out the contacts of this 39 year old Chinese man. The extent of spread is yet to be determined. The death toll in the island state stood at 28 as of May 19, by May 26 it rose to 31.

Surely, as the crisis continues it brings home the fact that even good governance has its limits. But without good governance, the crisis would cross all limits. The lessons from Taiwan and Honk Kong are that even with a good medical infrastructure and effective governance, the crisis can be difficult, if not intractable to handle. Vietnam's lessons provide countries like Bangladesh some hope. Vietnam was open about the problem from February when a Chinese-American businessman apparently brought the disease from Hong Kong. Fortunately, (for Vietnam) a well-known communicable disease expert Carlo Urbani, an Italian working for WHO, was at hand who alerted the government. He succumbed to the disease but his warnings were heeded and the situation was brought under control. Vietnam's example showed that an administration that listens and is ready to cooperate with international agencies can handle the crisis effectively. Bangladesh should not lower its guard against this nasty disease and must remain vigilant. A combination of SARS with bad governance can be frightening. We in Bangladesh can all be patriotic and chide the donor community for accusing our democratically elected government of poor governance, or we can eat the humble pie and gear up for cleaning our own house. We may not have to wait for the actual SARS, we already are faced with a host of serious problems where the viruses of corruption, poverty, gangsterism, injustices, lies and mismanagement impede our progress. Here the lessons from China may help. We must shift from a denial mode and come out clean in favour of transparency and truth.

Habibul Haque Khondker is an Associate Professor of Sociology at National University of Singapore.