The Tribune

While trying to avoid going over old ground again, I hasten to comment about major developments in relation to coronavirus this week in Europe which is in turmoil once more over the pandemic. New national lockdowns in France and in Germany have been followed by an announcement at the weekend of another total lockdown in Britain. This is due to start on Thursday this week and will last for one month in the hope of bringing down the level of transmission of the virus – the so-called R-rate.

The UK’s new national lockdown is in response to alarming claims by the scientists of 50,000 likely infections daily, affecting all age groups and covering large parts of the country. It is judged this will impose too heavy a burden on a National Health Service that is struggling to cope. Critics of Prime Minister Boris Johnson are already saying that he has been spooked by dire projections forecasting 4,000 COVID deaths by late December. But it is widely believed that these figures are suspect and the threat of infection and death have been exaggerated so that the current situation does not justify the likely further serious damage to the ailing economy resulting from a second total lockdown.

With this in mind, it might be instructive to look at the wider picture that is emerging. Governments persist in lockdowns. But violent anti-lockdown demonstrations – for example, in Italy and Spain -- are evidence of growing public opposition to what is increasingly regarded as authoritarianism by political leaders in handling the crisis. More and more people consider that shutting a whole country down is not only ineffective but is outside a government’s democratic mandate and in the UK the Prime Minister and his colleagues are losing public trust.

It is now widely accepted that, although lockdowns might temporarily slow the spread of the virus, they are not a long-term solution since they merely defer the problem – a case of simply kicking the can down the road. The World Health Organisation has said lockdowns do not work, and a host of scientists agree; as expressed, for example, in the Great Barrington Declaration last month penned by three noted epidemiologists and co-signed by thousands of other medical experts.

So, we are all reminded yet again that without a vaccine the virus can only be curbed by shielding the most vulnerable and imposing proper social distancing measures. That means individuals assuming personal responsibility for their own protection as well as that of others with whom they come into contact -- and shops, banks and businesses taking appropriate measures to keep people apart from one another. But it is the responsibility of governments to operate an effective ‘test, trace and isolate system’. Meanwhile, as everyone must now be aware, lockdowns are having a devastating effect on the economy and on public health so that the collateral damage is becoming worse than the virus itself.

As Britain has been plunged into another lockdown that had previously been ruled out as the ‘nuclear option’, Tory backbench MPs are demanding that any new tougher measures should be put to a vote by Parliament. Perhaps they have been encouraged by the views of retired UK Supreme Court judge, Lord Sumption, who has been described as not just a brilliant lawyer but also a distinguished historian. As such, he is said to use language with care and is someone to whom others should listen. In a recent speech – and before the latest total lockdown – he referred to unnecessary ‘collective hysteria and governmental folly’ and to ‘breathtaking’ infringement of democratic rights while branding the government’s coronavirus measures the ‘most significant interference with personal freedom in the history of the country’.

Continuing, he said that ‘during the COVID-19 pandemic the British state had exercised coercive powers over its citizens on a scale never previously attempted’ even in wartime - and all of this authorised by ministerial decree with minimal parliamentary involvement. He then warned that such action could lead to long-term authoritarian government and went on to remind his audience that in a country like Britain governments hold power on the sufferance of the elected chamber of the legislature and without that it is not a democracy.

In this context, I found it interesting to read what the former Health Minister, Dr Duane Sands, and Opposition leader, Philip ‘Brave’ Davis – both of whom are opposed to extension of the state of emergency to November 30 -- had to say in Parliament last week about the government’s handling of the health crisis. Dr Sands was quoted in the press recently as saying that the country needed a national reset to deal with the rising number of COVID-19 cases and that lockdowns are only required ‘to recalibrate our response’. In Parliament, he was reported to have stated that the government’s policy so far had not worked and The Bahamas as a nation was under performing compared to others in the region. He said that, in addition to much more testing, a special modular COVID facility should be built - and it was also time to put an end to the idea of the Competent Authority and its sweeping powers during the state of emergency. For his part, Mr ‘Brave’ Davis condemned the government’s failure to deal with the pandemic and called on it to justify the restrictions and provide a plan to slow down the spread of the virus, to support the healthcare system and to rebuild the economy.

No doubt, people will take heed of such views because both these parliamentarians have exceptional knowledge and experience of the situation and are well placed to judge the next steps. By now, it must surely be clear to the general public that, while it is crucial to rebuild the nation’s economy, what is also urgently needed is mass testing, followed by tracing and enforced isolation for those who may be able, unwittingly, to transmit the virus to others.

Bishop Ellis crossed the line with Minnis criticism

Unsurprisingly, last week’s attack by Bishop Neil Ellis on the government has caused much controversy for it calls into question the fundamental question of the separation of the Church from the State. He has been widely condemned for criticising the Prime Minister personally in his role as the Competent Authority in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic since a state of emergency was created in March.

Historically, around the world the relationship between Christianity and politics has been complex. In many countries, the Church strongly values the separation between it and the State because this ensures that people can freely live and practise their religious faith without fear of intimidation or the threat of government coercion. It means that the Church can provide a place of worship and fulfil its function of preaching the Word of God and interpreting and explaining the Scriptures. It can also concentrate on its vital role in the community of developing social networks and programmes and helping the poor and those in distress.

The Church should not normally be drawn into politics but inevitably it may become involved in socio-economic issues as part of its community work. So it is unrealistic to maintain that religious leaders should be precluded from any discussion of public policy.

But that is fundamentally different from mounting from the pulpit a personal attack on the Prime Minister, particularly on such an important and controversial issue as the government’s handling of COVID-19. Most would surely agree that it was inappropriate, while the Prime Minister’s comments to The Tribune about Bishop Ellis’ criticism of him were admirably restrained and a model of reason and good sense.

As an outsider who is not fully informed about the involvement, here at home, of local religious leaders in politics, I was interested to read what fellow Tribune columnist, Alicia Wallace, wrote last week about ‘it not being unusual for them to use their pulpits to address political issues and influence the behaviour – particularly the voting behaviour – of the membership’; and that politicians ‘prioritise the Church, recognising religious leaders as some of the most powerful influencers in the country with congregations that are also constituencies’.

Against this background, it was fascinating to watch a video -- sent to me by a friend -- of a public homily by a Catholic priest in the US explaining why it would be wrong to vote for Biden in today’s presidential election. He stressed that he was not seeking to tell anyone how to vote but simply to advise how voting for one or other of the candidates lined up with the teachings of the Catholic Church. He spoke of its core principles and non-negotiable values like the sanctity of life and marriage, the preservation of religious liberty and adherence to foundational moral principles – and about how it would be wrong to vote for someone who was unashamedly in favour of abortion.

Such action by a priest might be seen by some as political interference. But advising people what their vote would mean according to the teachings of the Church is a far cry from criticising an incumbent Prime Minister, and using the pulpit to do so.

Finally, the day of reckoning

By its nature, the bitterly contested US presidential election has been something of a marathon over many months. But latterly it has turned into a sprint towards the finish line, with President Trump, after weeks of political rallies, now holding several a day in an effort to convince voters that he deserves a second term.

Election day is here at last and millions will be casting their ballots. But it seems that some 90 million people have already voted under the system practised in the US and have been turning out in exceptionally high numbers. The polls suggest a Biden victory, but it now looks as though announcement of a result could be delayed past this evening.

I wonder whether others may be as puzzled as I have been by how the massive attendance at Trump rallies does not appear to be reflected in the polls. On Sunday, he spoke at five separate events that attracted tens of thousands of enthusiastic followers - together, no doubt, with some who are still ‘undecided’ – cheering almost, it seemed, his every utterance. The record attendance was reported to have been at a rally in Pennsylvania a day or so earlier when no less than 58,000 showed up.

Whether or not people like and support President Trump – and there are, of course, large numbers who do not - there is no denying his mastery in handling these massive crowds and getting his message across. Some people dismiss his barnstorming approach as dangerous, dishonest and irresponsible rabble rousing that verges on demagoguery.

But, having watched many of his rallies, I am amazed at how well he communicates and connects with people using his formidable oratorical skills, combined with a folksy manner, and often speaking for up to an hour and a half with no notes and, it appears, minimal use of a teleprompter.

Added to that is the energy and work ethic of this 74-year-old man. One would have thought the positive reaction he receives from apparently adoring crowds ought to translate into potential votes and make him the frontrunner. However, Biden remains the favourite, though a Republican surge at the polls today could still push Trump over the line. In the frenzied state of polarised politics in the US, who can tell?