• World
    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Central & South Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America & Caribbean
    • Middle East & North Africa
    • North America
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
    • US Election
    • US politics
    • Joe Biden
    • Brexit
    • European Union
    • India
    • Arab world
  • Economics
    • Finance
    • Eurozone
    • International Trade
  • Business
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Startups
    • Technology
  • Culture
    • Entertainment
    • Music
    • Film
    • Books
    • Travel
  • Environment
    • Climate change
    • Smart cities
    • Green Economy
  • Global Change
    • Education
    • Refugee Crisis
    • International Aid
    • Human Rights
  • International Security
    • ISIS
    • War on Terror
    • North Korea
    • Nuclear Weapons
  • Science
    • Health
  • 360 °
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice
  • About
  • FO Store
Sections
  • World
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Sign Up
  • Login
  • Publish

Make Sense of the world

Unique insight from 2,000+ contributors in 80+ Countries

Close

How Mismanaging a Pandemic Can Cost Countries Their Soft Power

Scientific and technical expertise are currently major sources of soft power for countries, and the political response to the COVID-19 pandemic is contributing to the reshaping of the geopolitical order.
By Valerio Alfonso Bruno • Jun 18, 2020
Valerio Alfonso Bruno, COVID-19 pandemic, what is soft power, UK management of COVID-19, Brazil management of COVID-19, Sweden management of COVID-19, New Zealand management of COVID-19, scientific expertise soft power, sources of soft power, effects of COVID-19 on soft power, South Korea COVID-19 model

Funeral of a COVID-19 victim, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 4/6/2020 © Photocarioca / Shutterstock

The term soft power was coined by Joseph Nye in the late 1980s as a country’s ability to influence others without the use of force. Soft power is established in culture and grounded in history, unlike hard power, which is based on coercion and the use of military and economic means. Soft power and hard power can go hand in hand.

The United States, for example, has for a long time demonstrated how the two powers are complementary and both benefit foreign policy. A country capable of successfully dealing with a sudden, catastrophic event (such as a pandemic), will presumably be perceived as a reliable leader by the international community.


Racism in America Leaves Its Soft Power Greatly Weakened

READ MORE


Countries such as Germany, South Korea and New Zealand, where policies have been adopted rapidly by the political leadership in synergy with the scientific community, have seen their soft power rising dramatically. On the contrary, nations whose leaders have responded to the pandemic based on ideological or electoral calculus, such as the US, Brazil and the UK, have seen their international reputation jeopardized. Today, scientific and technical expertise are major sources of soft power for countries, and the political response to the COVID-19 pandemic is contributing to shaping a different geopolitical order.

Response Models

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, most political leaders benefited domestically from the rally-around-the-flag effect, the phenomenon whereby governments obtain a short-term increase in electoral support during times of crisis such as wars and natural disasters. However, the rise in popular support was sustained only in countries that have shown policies consistent with scientific expertise. Germany has been gradually emerging as the country that has better managed to contain the coronavirus outbreak, with Chancellor Angela Merkel saluted as capable of mixing science and political expertise to explain lockdown measures.

Similarly, South Korea has been widely applauded as a leader in this crisis, with its quick mass testing and hi-tech apps that trace and track the spread of the coronavirus, dramatically limiting the contagion. The South Korean model is considered to be the optimal response to a global pandemic.

On the opposing side are countries that have seen their soft power decline because of poor policymaking. The new centrality of scientific expertise at the time of the COVID-19 diminished the room of maneuver for populist and radical-right narratives. Historically, radical-right and populist parties have proudly exhibited an aversion to knowledge and complexity by openly opposing technocratic elites and experts in favor of the pure simplicity of “the people.” US President Trump, notwithstanding the rally-around-the-flag effect boosting his popular support early on in the outbreak, has appeared increasingly unease and nervous at dealing with journalists pressuring him during briefings he deems “not worth the time & effort.”

logo

Make Sense of the World

Unique insight from 2,000+ contributors in 80+ Countries

Make Sense of the World
Unique insights from 2000+ contributors in 80+ countries

Trump’s discouraging disregard for expertise, which may have helped him in times of business as usual to galvanize his electorate, is now hurting his reelection campaign as the US remains an unenviable leader when it comes to the number of coronavirus deaths (nearly 118,000) and infections (over 2 million). In an unprecedented move, the social media site Twitter has resorted to fact-checking the president’s statements.

The UK, once a global leader in pandemic preparedness, was in for a surprise when Prime Minister Boris Johnson warned his fellow citizens that “many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time” to the coronavirus. The government had embraced the controversial idea of herd immunity, in which a high proportion of the population is exposed to the virus to build up antibody resistance in wider society, only to change course when it became clear that the strategy was unsustainable. Despite continuing to claim that its decision-making has been “led by science,” the government’s unclear policies and inadequate execution of lockdown and other measures have resulted in Britain having the highest death toll in Europe.

In Latin America, Brazil is most probably the country that has exhibited the slowest and least scientific approach to the pandemic only to eventually opt for a U-turn — a delay that has cost it over 46,000 deaths to date, second now only to the US in the number of infections that are nearing 1 million. According to The Guardian, governors of the 26 Brazilian states agreed that the strategy of President Jair Bolsonaro, who refused to listen to advice from his own scientific experts and continues to openly flout WHO guidelines, was “sowing confusion over the need for quarantine and social distancing measures.”

In the Spotlight

The rise or decline in soft power among states can be decisive in shaping a new geopolitical equilibrium that can play a key role for smaller countries in terms of reputation. New Zealand and Sweden are two countries that have found themselves under the spotlight of the world media for their management of the coronavirus outbreak. New Zealand, under the leadership of its Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, has been widely acclaimed together with South Korea for its quick response: By the time it declared the outbreak contained earlier this month, the country of 5 million saw 22 deaths and just over 1,500 infections.

On the opposite side, Sweden is seen as deliberately opting to sacrifice the lives of its most vulnerable citizens by adopting the same herd immunity strategy the UK was forced to abandon. The result there is more than 5,000 deaths and over 50,000 infections for 10 million inhabitants. Neighboring Denmark, Finland and Norway, with a collective population of almost 17 million, reported 600, 326 and 244 deaths respectively to date, almost a quarter of Sweden’s toll. The policies of the Swedish leadership have been heavily criticized not only abroad but also domestically by numerous scientists. Much like the United States, Brazil and the United Kingdom, the impact on the reputation of these small countries earned by the management of the COVID-19 may have long-lasting effects that are not easy to quantify in economic terms, in sectors such as tourism, immigration and foreign direct investment.

The COVID-19 pandemic is pushing us to reconsider the role of science and expertise, and the relation between knowledge and policymaking. To date, the fight against SARS-CoV-2 represents, on a large scale and without real precedents, a confrontation between political leaders and scientists. The sudden centrality assumed by knowledge and technical expertise in the last months is already having direct and far-reaching political consequences, both within and between nations. Populist governments are seeing a decline of popular support in light of their incompetent management of the pandemic, and their image and soft power are also suffering on the international stage as a result.

The pandemic has refocused the attention of the international community on the vital importance of science-led approaches, raising the visibility of public health experts such as virologists, epidemiologists and medical professionals. This expertise will play an important role in the relationships between countries going forward. Addressing the COVID-19 pandemic successfully will prove to be an undoubtful source of soft power in the coming years.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Share Story
Categories360° Analysis, Asia Pacific, Coronavirus, Donald Trump News, Europe, Europe News, European politics news, Health, Insight, Latin America & the Caribbean, North America, Politics, United Kingdom News, US news, US politics news, World News TagsBrazil management of COVID-19, COVID-19 pandemic, effects of COVID-19 on soft power, New Zealand management of COVID-19, scientific expertise soft power, sources of soft power, South Korea COVID-19 model, Sweden management of COVID-19, UK management of COVID-19, Valerio Alfonso Bruno, what is soft power
Join our network of more than 2,000 contributors to publish your perspective, share your story and shape the global conversation. Become a Fair Observer and help us make sense of the world.

READ MORE IN THIS 360° SERIES

In Sierra Leone, COVID-19 Could Make Maternal Mortality Worse
By Emma Minor • Jul 06, 2020
Herd Immunity May Be Our Best Hope
By Daniel Wagner & Mark Eckley • Jul 06, 2020
The EU Should Collect Health Data Centrally
By Susan Bergner & Isabell Kump • Jun 29, 2020
How Will COVID-19 Change Our World?
By Atul Singh • Jun 26, 2020
COVID-19 Contact Tracing: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?
By Claire Downing • Jun 10, 2020
If the Pandemic Is a “War,” Then India Needs to Spend More
By Bobby Ramakant, Sandeep Pandey & Shobha Shukla • Jun 08, 2020
What Is the Key to Tunisia Successfully Beating COVID-19?
By Bill Law • Jun 08, 2020
The Humanitarian Disaster Before Us: COVID-19 in Somalia
By Arden Bentley • Jun 06, 2020
East Africa Faces a Cascade of Crises
By Bettina Rudloff & Annette Weber • Jun 04, 2020
The Swiss People’s Party Versus COVID-19
By Hans-Georg Betz • Jun 03, 2020
The 2020 Pandemic Election
By Saurabh Jha • May 29, 2020
COVID-19 Casts a Shadow Over Swedish Exceptionalism
By Mette Wiggen • May 21, 2020
Has COVID-19 Launched a New Era of Deadly Pandemics?
By I.P. Singh & Atul Singh • May 19, 2020
COVID-19 Arrives in Refugee Camps
By Phil Cole • May 18, 2020
The Worst President at the Worst Time
By Larry Beck • May 14, 2020
South Korea Faces Challenges in a Post-Coronavirus World
By Thomas Kalinowski • May 13, 2020
Debunking Trump’s China Nonsense
By John Feffer • May 08, 2020
Global Health Policy Is World Politics
By Susan Bergner, Maike Voss & Nadine Godehardt • May 07, 2020
Will We Ever Know the True Origin of COVID-19?
By Daniel Wagner • May 06, 2020
COVID-19: What Indonesia Can Learn From South Korea and Taiwan
By Luthfi Dhofier • May 05, 2020
Brazil Struggles to Find a Unified Approach to the Coronavirus Pandemic
By Thiago Alves Ferreira & Stephanie Fillion • May 05, 2020
Narendra Modi Is Fighting COVID-19 With Little Logic
By Satish Jha • May 01, 2020
What You Need to Know About the COVID-19 Crisis in the US
By Sunil Asnani & Kshitij Bhatia • Apr 30, 2020
History Will Judge Britain’s COVID-19 Response
By Rupert Hodder • Apr 30, 2020
China’s Uncertain Recovery From COVID-19
By Maa Zhi Hong • Apr 29, 2020
Rohingya Refugee Camps Are the Next Frontline in COVID-19 Fight
By Daniel Sullivan • Apr 28, 2020
Brazil Is Heading Into a Perfect Storm
By Lenin Cavalcanti Guerra • Apr 28, 2020
India's Tactical Victory on HCQ Misses the Bigger Picture
By Mauktik Kulkarni • Apr 27, 2020
Will COVID-19 Alter the Global Order?
By Joel Blankenship • Apr 27, 2020
South Korea Shows the Way Forward for Post-Pandemic Recovery
By John Feffer • Apr 24, 2020
Why Maximum Pressure on Venezuela Is the Only Way Out
By Leonardo Vivas • Apr 22, 2020
Can the WHO Restore Credibility After Its Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic?
By Hans-Georg Betz • Apr 22, 2020
For Cybercriminals, a Global Pandemic Presents an Opportunity
By Beau Peters • Apr 17, 2020
Playing Catch-Up With the Next Pandemic
By John Feffer • Apr 17, 2020
The Politics Behind the Coronavirus in Brazil
By Helder Ferreira do Vale • Apr 15, 2020
Remembering the Easter Sunday Victims in the Shadow of COVID-19
By Amjad Saleem • Apr 14, 2020
China's Mask Diplomacy Won't Change the World Order
By Brennan Kau • Apr 09, 2020
How the US Government Failed to Prepare for a Pandemic
By Daniel Wagner • Apr 09, 2020
As President, Donald Trump Has a Duty
By Gary Grappo • Apr 08, 2020
Should We All Have Been Wearing Masks From the Start?
By Hans-Georg Betz • Apr 07, 2020
In Tajikistan, It’s Someone Else’s Virus
By Andrea Schmitz • Apr 06, 2020
Why Are Mexico and Brazil So Slow in Reacting to COVID-19?
By Lenin Cavalcanti Guerra • Apr 01, 2020
Are We Wrong About COVID-19 Death Rates?
By Daniel Wagner • Mar 31, 2020
One Antidote to Coronavirus: More Multilateralism
By Gary Grappo • Mar 30, 2020
Saudi Arabia’s Wars on Three Fronts
By Bill Law • Mar 30, 2020
The Politics of the Coronavirus
By John Feffer • Mar 27, 2020
What the Coronavirus Says About Us
By John Feffer • Mar 24, 2020
Why It’s Taking Britain So Long to Tackle COVID-19
By Rupert Hodder • Mar 23, 2020
COVID-19: What Italy and the US Are Doing Wrong
By Valerio Alfonso Bruno • Mar 10, 2020
The British Government Is About to Fail on Coronavirus
By Rupert Hodder • Mar 09, 2020
Coronavirus Outbreak Puts the World’s Governments on Notice
By Daniel Wagner • Mar 03, 2020
Coronavirus Outbreak Exacerbates Italy’s Political Divisions
By Valerio Alfonso Bruno • Feb 27, 2020
China’s Influence Dampens International Response to Coronavirus Outbreak
By Daniel Wagner • Feb 24, 2020
How Effective Is China’s Response to the Coronavirus Outbreak?
By Maa Zhi Hong • Feb 04, 2020

Post navigation

Previous PostPrevious Can Volodymyr Zelensky Bring Peace to Eastern Ukraine?
Next PostNext Deeper Fragmentation Looms for Libya
Subscribe
Register for $9.99 per month and become a member today.
Publish
Join our community of more than 2,500 contributors to publish your perspective, share your narrative and shape the global discourse.
Donate
We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Explore

  • About
  • Authors
  • FO Store
  • FAQs
  • Republish
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Contact

Regions

  • Africa
  • Asia Pacific
  • Central & South Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & Caribbean
  • Middle East & North Africa
  • North America

Topics

  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Environment
  • Global Change
  • International Security
  • Science

Sections

  • 360°
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice

Daily Dispatch


© Fair Observer All rights reserved
We Need Your Consent
We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. Learn more about how we use cookies or edit your cookie preferences. Privacy Policy. My Options I Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Edit Cookie Preferences

The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.

As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media.

 
Necessary
Always Enabled

These cookies essential for the website to function.

Analytics

These cookies track our website’s performance and also help us to continuously improve the experience we provide to you.

Performance
Uncategorized

This cookie consists of the word “yes” to enable us to remember your acceptance of the site cookie notification, and prevents it from displaying to you in future.

Preferences
Save & Accept