There is no doubt that the coronavirus pandemic will eventually recede, and societies will halt its spread one by one. The implications of the pandemic, however, will not stop. It will have implications on the current global scene and its political, economic, military and cultural relations, and on the future of extremist populist movements that have risen in the last few years and whose leaders have reached power in several countries.

 

 

With the rapid spread of this pandemic and the consequent self-centered and individualistic precautionary measures that most countries have adopted, such as self-isolation and closing borders, many have started to have doubts about globalization and the future of humanity as one space. This has dragged people toward populist conclusions and slogans that doubt the strength of human connections that the telecommunications revolution and the movement of capital and information have imposed. After some time, however, the opposite appeared, and this “international virus” restored the unity of the world and the interdependence of the fates of different societies. It is not imprudent to say that the most manifest implications of the pandemic are exposing the superficiality of ruling populist movements after they failed to confront the pandemic and to limit its impact.

 

 

If some of the foundations of populist thought are its rejection of human rights, fueling racism, demonizing people from different races or religions and inciting fear and hatred against them, and undermining the values of equality, tolerance and respect, the coronavirus pandemic is different in that it infects and kills without discrimination based on sex, religion or ethnicity.

 

 

If we remember the spirit of animosity against refugees escaping violence that stained European populists and the hate campaign against Mexican and Muslim immigrants and immigrants from ethnic minorities that still dominates the US president’s politics, we can say that there is no longer any motivation to mobilize people based on fear of the other given the blind spread of the virus that does not discriminate. If we also consider the substantial role that social media has played and still plays during social distancing and isolation allowing millions of people to follow the tragedies happening all over the world, we can explain the notable recession in populist discourse inciting hatred toward the other, and the rise of feelings of solidarity between people and empathy toward the tragedies they and their human brethren are suffering.

 

 

On the other hand, the pandemic has exposed the populists’ resilience toward reason and knowledge and how they undermined scientific warnings about how dangerous the coronavirus is, which delayed many countries, most prominently the US, to start taking effective measures against the virus, leading to many avoidable losses.

 

 

The pandemic forced people to prioritize scientific research and reasonable judgement and led to a decline in the populist discourse that had long played on peoples’ instincts and employed myths, legends and delusions. Scientific facts and deductions have exposed populist movements that used contradictory and superficial statements meant to obscure the truth and instead used conspiracy theories or religion to explain the pandemic. This forced some populist leaders to retreat from the naive statements that they had previously made. Nobody can forget the British prime minister’s statement about the pandemic and the number of people that this “herd immunity” and “survival of the fittest” would have killed?! One also cannot forget the US president’s disturbed performance and how contradictory his positions were in understanding and explaining the spread of the virus: whether how he quickly undermined how dangerous its effects will be, his false promises about there being a successful cure or vaccine, his most recent statement about using household disinfectants to kill the virus or his repeated accusations against China for being responsible for what is happening in a bid to justify his inability and delay in taking serious steps to stop the pandemic.

 

 

Perhaps without this pandemic, it would have been difficult to closely examine how decisions are made and crises are dealt with, or to expose the many common features, especially the self-centered mentality, between totalitarian regimes, such as China and Iran, and democratic regimes led by populist leaders, such as the US.

 

 

This mentality gives priority to the narrow and selfish economic interests of the regime and does not trust the capacity of citizens to protect themselves and the health of their societies. This mentality cares for nothing but to showcase its uniqueness regardless of pain and suffering. This does not change the truth but reaffirms it by the exaggerated criticism of Europe’s shortcomings in providing solidarity, such as in Spain and Italy, or the campaigns that are using the Chinese model to promote centralization and authoritarianism as the right choice in both confronting the pandemic and otherwise, or some populist governments, such as Turkey and Hungary, investing in the fear that the virus has created to strengthen its repressive grip, further limit democracy and stand above the rule of law and institutions.

 

 

Despite the disparities in the losses incurred by Western countries hit by the pandemic and the differences in how different governments confronted its spread, the scene is pointing towards large defects in their relations and structure, a decline in cooperation and solidarity in confronting the crisis, disparities in their healthcare systems, a lack or weakness in social justice, and class difference. This explains the large damage suffered by societies where free healthcare services had declined and the rapid spread of the pandemic among the impoverished in poor areas.

 

 

The painful blow that the pandemic dealt populist movements will not be useful if the grievances and manifestations of racism and deprivation that provided fertile ground for populism and extremism are not addressed. It will also not be useful if human rights are not reaffirmed and defended as universal human values not to be compromised. It is also necessary not to hesitate in showing the benefits and virtues of democratic governments free of selfishness, corruption and discrimination and that are held accountable by their people, especially in regards to how they protected people’s lives during the coronavirus pandemic or any other crisis that they go through.