The covid-19 pandemic has caused a health, economic, and social crisis of the greatest magnitude, but it has also deeply affected democratic political systems and the relationship established by citizens with the political powers. The key instruments for fighting against the virus have represented hitherto unseen restrictions of certain fundamental freedoms; this is what has happened in cases such as lockdowns in people’s homes or the prohibiting of meetings. Furthermore, the need to take many rapid and complex decisions has favoured processes involving the centralisation, concentration, and technification of power. 

The fundamental goal of the study on which this article is based was to analyse how citizens have reacted in the face of these dilemmas. The research conducted aims to understand to what extent the context of the threat of the pandemic makes citizens more tolerant of certain restrictions on freedoms and of a process of concentration and centralisation of power. This question is significant, because greater citizen tolerance towards restrictions could open up a window of opportunity for potential temptations of authoritarianism. The research is based on a survey (“The Effects of the COVID-19 Outbreak on Democracy”, COVIDEMO) undertaken in five waves, from January 2020 to March 2021. The survey was conducted periodically during the whole year to be able to observe to what extent changes in citizens’ democratic preferences are stable or temporary.

The public policies applied to fight against the spread of covid-19 in practically the whole world have brought with them numerous restrictions of freedoms. To achieve social distancing, there has often been use of coercion, with the threat of sanctions and the restriction of freedoms. Faced with this situation, one might wonder whether this is acceptable for democratic citizenship. However, it is a debate that has parallels with the debate that arose around international terrorism: following the 9/11 attacks in the United States in 2001, the question was tackled regarding to what extent people are prepared to sacrifice personal freedoms in exchange for protection. To try to understand this issue better, in the survey conducted, the dilemma of choosing between protection and freedom was posed to respondents. The dilemma was posed in relation to different threats which were randomly assigned: coronavirus, terrorism and climate change. This meant a reference point was available in order to interpret the responses relating to covid-19.

In figure 1 it is observed that citizens have a greater willingness to sacrifice fundamental freedoms when they are asked about the covid-19 crisis, whereas their willingness is weaker when they have to respond regarding climate change or international terrorism. This was especially true in March 2020, during the first wave of the pandemic. At that time, the degree of agreement with the need to sacrifice freedoms was, on average, 8 points on a scale of 10. However, this degree of agreement had fallen significantly (to an average of 6) one year later, by March 2021. However, it should be highlighted that, at that time, citizens were more willing to sacrifice freedoms to fight against covid-19 than to tackle the other global threats. 

In order to understand in greater depth the willingness to accept limitations of fundamental freedoms, the fifth wave of the survey included an experiment to evaluate the support for two measures restricting freedom that have been very much present in public debate: the limitation of the right to protest and the tracking of mobile phones. The data show great acceptance of the limitation of protests, but the same is not true for the tracking of mobile phones. 

The design of the survey’s questions permitted study of the role of public health experts as legitimisers of these measures. On a random basis, half of the survey respondents were asked about their level of agreement with the measures proposed by public health experts. Exactly the same measures were posed to the other half, but in this case proposed by the Government. In all cases, it is observed that citizens are more inclined to accept the restrictions if they are communicated by public health experts. 

The question of the curtailment of freedoms was not the only democratic dilemma posed by the covid-19 pandemic. The management of a crisis of this size also has the potential to alter the balances of power that characterise democratic systems. The division of powers between institutions and levels of government (European, state, autonomous region and local) can be perceived as an obstacle to responding effectively to a crisis situation. In fact, this was the main argument for the imposing of a single state-wide command during the first state of alarm, in March 2020. 

The survey included questions to evaluate to what extent citizens supported the concentration of power under the argument of fighting more effectively against the pandemic. For this, a question was included on the degree of agreement with the need for union around a strong leader. As in the case of fundamental freedoms, survey respondents were asked regarding one of the aforementioned global threats: covid-19, international terrorism, and climate change. As in the previous case, the threat regarding which they had to respond was assigned randomly, and it is observed that citizens expressed a greater preference for a strong leader with regard to the threat of covid-19 than when asked regarding climate change or international terrorism. This was especially true in the first wave, in March 2020, but this preference was maintained, although with variations, over the course of the four waves of the pandemic. 

As has been indicated previously, the pandemic generated among citizens a very significant demand for strong leadership, above all initially. To examine this issue in greater depth, a new experiment within the framework of the March 2021 survey was proposed. The experiment put citizens before the dilemma of opting for management based on a single command with broad-ranging powers or management that would be based on dialogue in Parliament and with social agents. The dilemma was proposed for different randomly assigned tasks: management of the coronavirus crisis, of the economic crisis, or of public affairs in general. Although in all cases the preference for management by consensus was in the majority, mention of the coronavirus crisis caused the difference to be much smaller: close to 53% of respondents chose management based on consensus and up to 47%, single command. In contrast, when respondents were asked about the economic crisis or the management, in general, of public affairs, the preference for a single command fell to 36% and 31%, respectively. Citizen preferences regarding public management of the coronavirus crisis still presented, one year later, important peculiarities in comparison with the management of other types of public affairs.

An additional dimension of the political dilemmas posed by the pandemic is the distribution of power between different levels of government. The pandemic is a global problem and, as such, it demands a strong coordination between countries. Moreover, authorities closest to the territory have better information regarding the reach of the pandemic, its capacities to tackle it, and on the economic and social costs of restrictive measures. 

To understand how citizens evaluated this dilemma, in the survey conducted they were asked about their preferences: whether more power should be granted to the central Spanish Government or alternatively to the European Union for the management of the covid-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the responses with their preferences were compared with respect to the other two global challenges (climate change and terrorism), which involve similar problems of coordination and externalities. Each participant responded regarding one of the challenges, assigned randomly. The results show that, initially, citizens were more favourable towards granting much more power to the central Spanish Government. However, this effect disappeared in a matter of months, possibly due to satisfaction with the autonomous regions’ management of the pandemic in Spain. On the contrary, the lack of citizens’ desire for Europeanisation of the management of the covid-19 crisis is prominent, in marked contrast with the attitude regarding the other challenges posed in the survey. It does not appear that citizens have much faith in the European Union for managing the current crisis.

Finally, also analysed in the study carried out was another of the democratic dilemmas posed by the coronavirus pandemic: the preference for technocratic management or political management of public affairs. This dilemma is key, since if citizens prefer government by technocrats instead of politicians, and that their actions be guided by criteria that are purely technical and not ideological, this will make it more difficult to attribute responsibilities and the possibility for accountability. Furthermore, if the action of those in government were based on programmes that elude any kind of ideological criteria, the need for democracy itself would become debatable, as this could lead to the idea that only technical answers exist to the challenges faced by society.

To see how the attitudes of respondents had changed towards the technical management of public affairs, the basis used was a survey conducted prior to the outbreak of the covid-19 crisis. Specifically, between January and March 2020, there was a significant increase in support for technocratic solutions, such as the Government being formed by technicians and not politicians, and management being based on technical rather than political criteria, as well as a preference for voting for those who had managed public affairs well, even if their ideas were not shared. Undoubtedly, the most significant aspect of these data is that, unlike the situation with other attitudes of citizens, the tendency since the start of the pandemic has been maintained practically unaltered in relation to their support for technocratic solutions. This would confirm that the threats that emerge at specific moments in time can cause lasting changes in society’s preferences.

The study on which this article is based has followed the evolution of the democratic preferences of Spanish society during the first year of the pandemic, based on the adaptation of a prior survey that had been conducted by the authors before its outbreak. In the data, a strong effect can be observed of the first wave of the pandemic, which led citizens to accept important curtailments of freedoms and to support the centralisation of power. A marked technocratic shift in public opinion has also been documented. 

The evolution over the course of the first year shows a certain tendency towards the normalisation of democratic preferences: as the months passed, society showed itself to be less willing to accept curtailments of freedoms and changes in the balances of power. It could be thought that a certain learning has occurred around the possibility of democratic management of the pandemic. The only indicators that have stabilised are those regarding technocratic preferences: preferences for technical governments have been significantly reinforced this year.

However, despite a certain normalisation, the pandemic continues to be a very important factor in supporting more authoritarian solutions. The perception of threat experienced by citizens has very relevant effects on their democratic preferences. These types of contexts may represent windows of opportunity for limiting freedoms and concentrating power. Nonetheless, they may also constitute a good reason for maintaining rules-based public health management. Historically, different governments with authoritarian tendencies have used these types of contexts, assimilating them to an external threat, in order to alter political balances and restrict civil rights. However, in the case of the covid-19 crisis, the demand for fully democratic management of the pandemic is a majority demand, and has gradually been consolidated as the crisis has advanced.

ALSAN, M., L. BRAGHIERI, S. EICHMEYER, J. KIM, S. STANTCHEVA and D. YANG (2020): «Civil Liberties in Times of Crises», NBER Working Paper, 27972. 

AMAT, F., A. ARENAS, A. FALCÓ-GIMENO and J. MUÑOZ (2020): Pandemics meet democracy: Experimental evidence from the COVID-19 crisis in Spain. 

ANG, Y.Y. (2020): «When COVID-19 meets centralized, personalized power», Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 445-447.

ARCENEAUX, K., B.N. BAKKER, S. HOBOLT and C.E. DE VRIES (2020): Is COVID-19 a Threat to Liberal Democracy? 

CHEIBUB, J.A., J.Y.J. HONG and A. PRZEWORSKI (2020): Rights and Deaths: Government Reactions to the Pandemic, SSRN.