key: cord-027798-aq13cugo
authors: Kenny, Sue
title: Covid-19 and community development
date: 2020-06-01
journal: Community Dev J
DOI: 10.1093/cdj/bsaa020
sha: 
doc_id: 27798
cord_uid: aq13cugo

nan

joining balcony singing groups, have all helped to maintain social connections, and in so doing, boost community solidarity. After four decades which have been dominated by the neo-liberal values of competition and individual self-reliance, the validation of community co-operation and collaboration is to be welcomed.

We cannot ignore the immense suffering that has resulted from Covid-19, which is experienced unequally within and between societies. For example, contagion spreads more effectively in overcrowded poor areas, and these are often the areas with the most limited health facilities. In this context not-for-profit community organisations have stepped in as central players in welfare delivery. While welfare provision has always been the remit of many community organisations, their pivotal role is increasingly recognised, as state welfare programs and the privatised for-profit welfare delivery system are unable to keep up with demand. Community organisations are now responding to the needs of those who are newly unemployed, sick and homeless and the increasing need for intervention in situations of family violence. In the context of the immense demand, there is growing pressure for community development practitioners to focus entirely on welfare work, as agents of the "benign" state.

If we nudge our attention away from the normatively driven conception of community, other ways in which communities are stepping in to protect against Covid-19 raise some serious concerns. First, fear and panic have resulted in the closure of ranks amongst "insiders" and the Othering of those who are deemed to pose a threat in so far as they might be carrying the virus. Fear of the stranger is now back in force as refugees, people who are homeless and those coming from outside a neighbourhood or town are made to feel unwelcome. Second, once governments introduce policies such as social distancing and social isolation to stem the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, they are faced with the task of ensuring that citizens are compliant. There are several ways in which they do this. They harness the powers of the police. They use existing tracing mechanisms such as apps, or what Bartos (2020) calls "the panoptican in your pocket". But possibly the most effective way of checking on citizens' conformity is when fearful communities monitor themselves to ensure compliance with the new laws and regulations. By reporting transgressions, communities become part of the repressive state. In this context the solidarity of community is contingent upon obedience to the state. As individuals take on the role of self-righteous monitoring, communities become the agents of self-surveillance.

These last activities are problematic elements of the community response to Covid-19. Yet there is another issue facing community development practitioners as they grapple with the effects of the pandemic. This is the largely apolitical nature of the response. Providing welfare and supporting initiatives to sustain social connectedness should not mean withdrawing from our political and politicising activities. Indeed, it might well be that as the economic system driven by neo-liberal theory withers and the importance of collective endeavour is recognised, we have the best opportunity in a long while to be able to reshape thinking, structures and practices. However the opportunities to demand a more collaborative, democratic and just society are being threatened by a political form that is already casting a shadow over the responses to Covid-19. This political form is authoritarianism. A society in which fear is amplified, power is ceded to governments and communities practise self-surveillance provides an ideal setting for authoritarian practices.

Even before Covid-19, many parts of the world had been in the grip of, or on the edge of authoritarianism. Take for example, the countries that have been dominated by populist politics. A central feature of populist politics is the view that it is the prerogative of populist leaders, operating on behalf of the people (or as Hugo Chavez famously remarked, operating "as the people") to identify and respond to dangers. As people look for reassurances from politicians and more decision-making is handed over to political leaders, as is happening during the Covid-19 pandemic, a precedent is established, which gives leaders extra leeway to take control and to present themselves as saviours. Once populist leaders gain uncontested power, they can weaken or dismantle the institutions of democracy such as the judiciary and a free press, and strengthen methods of surveillance. In addition, the fear of outsiders bringing in the virus has meant the closure of borders, while also firing up nationalism and nurturing xenophobia, all of which are effective devices in the hands of authoritarian populists.

Nevertheless, there is a growing chorus of voices warning us of the ways in which authoritarianism is seeping into the fabric of society, particularly when this takes place under the guise of controlling the Covid-19 pandemic. For example, we are being alerted to the ways in which authoritarian populists such as Orban in Hungary and Bolsonaro in Brazil have used the pandemic as a cover to extend their powers, by eliminating dissent and extending state surveillance. As the quasi-populist UK Government responds to the pandemic, transparency is diminishing, as demonstrated by government redaction of important advice from health scientists (Lewis and Conn 2020) . What is also being reported is that the extension of the powers of populist leaders does not seem to have increased their popularity, and despite their claims to be able to "uniquely speak for the people" and "resolve their issues", right-wing populist governments have been unable to curtail the spread of Covid-19, particularly in Italy, the USA and Brazil. But whether this affects a longer term trajectory towards populist authoritarianism remains to be seen.

At the beginning of May, 2020, what can those committed to community development be doing in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and the changing socio-political milieu? Should we be waiting for a clearer picture of how politics and economics are playing out or should we be responding to the situation as we find it, and if so how? Do we put our energies into organising at the local, national or global level?

While constant monitoring of socio-political shifts and the progress of various responses to the virus, it would seem to me that there are five political actions that we can take now. These are first, to join the chorus of those alerting the world to the threats and dangers of authoritarianism. Authoritarian regimes straight-jacket civil society, and thus community development as well. There is a caveat here however. Warning about authoritarianism does not mean validating the views of radical libertarians who reject all state interventions. Second, we can work with our networks to expose the ways in which the catastrophic loss of livelihoods, spread unevenly within and between societies, is not just the outcome of the Covid-19 pandemic, but results from how societies are organised-around exploitation, inequality and pervasive neo-liberal ideology. Third, linking with our networks, we can agitate to ensure that knowledge, expertise and resources concerning Covid-19 are shared across the world, rather than being used as devices for gaining power and money. Fourth, the corollary of the massive failures of contemporary societies is that we need to be mobilising for a radical reconfiguration of society. There is no "return to normal". Of course, like the suggestions above, those committed to community development cannot do this alone. It requires determined political activism, globally, nationally and locally. Finally though, an advantage of being involved in community development is that we can point to the thousands of small scale initiatives that pre-figure very different ways of organising society. From these sources we could develop a kit-bag of exemplars that demonstrate the value of how to organise using such principles as social and ecological justice, collaboration and deliberative democracy.

These actions are all the more urgent because what happens in response to the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic is a rehearsal for the even bigger challenge for a humanity losing its way, climate change.

Panopticon in your pocket

Covid-19 and community development 5

UK scientists condemn 'Stalinist' attempt to censor Covid-19 advice, The Guardian