Mobilizing During the Covid-19 Pandemic: From Democratic Innovation to the Political Weaponization of Disinformation

Author:

Fominaya Cristina Flesher1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Global Studies, University of Aarhus, Denmark

Abstract

Political scholars express concern for the continued resilience of democracy in the face of multiple crises. In times of crisis, social movements articulate grievances and make demands of political leaders and policymakers. In contrast to the wave of pro-democracy movements following the 2008 global financial crash where protesters demanded accountability from elites, mobilization during the COVID-19 pandemic has defied expectations in several key ways. First, the expectation for protesters to mobilize primarily online in the face of the restrictions and risk associated with large gatherings has not been upheld. Instead, we have witnessed widespread “offline” mass protests. Second, despite high mortality rates and significant disparities in the effectiveness of national public health responses, we have not witnessed widespread mobilizations demanding governments do better to protect citizens from the virus. Instead, we have seen two radically different responses: At one extreme, veterans of “pro-democracy” movements have “pivoted,” using their skills and experience to either make up for weak government responses to COVID-19 (Hong Kong) or to reinforce government efforts to contain it (Taiwan). At the other extreme, “antidemocratic” and predominantly far right-wing movements have mobilized against public health measures, circulating COVID negationist and conspiracy messages. Indeed, the political weaponization of disinformation has been a notable feature of pandemic mobilization. I analyze these contrasting trends, highlighting the challenges they pose for the effective handling of the pandemic, and their broader implications for democratic legitimacy and resilience. In so doing, I call attention to the ways that mobilization during the pandemic challenges scholars to revisit some of our assumptions about the dynamics of social movements in times of crisis, and how they can foster or erode democracy. The analysis also suggests that scholars analyzing the impact of information disorders on democracy need to pay careful attention to offline protest as well as online transmission.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Social Sciences,Sociology and Political Science,Education,Cultural Studies,Social Psychology

Reference99 articles.

1. Agius C., Rosamond A. B., Kinnvall C. (2020). Populism, ontological insecurity and gendered nationalism: Masculinity, climate denial and Covid-19. Politics, Religion & Ideology, 21(4), 432–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/21567689.2020.1851871

2. Argentino M-A. (2020). Conspiracy pilled: The growing public health threat posed by conspiracy theories and disinformation, Concordia Research Blog, December 22. https://www.concordia.ca/cunews/offices/vprgs/sgs/public-scholars-20/2020/12/22/conspiracy-pilled.html

3. Artiga S., Orgera K., Pham O., Corallo B. (2020). Growing data underscore that communities of color are being harder hit by COVID-19, KFF Policy Watch, April 21. https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/growing-data-underscore-communities-color-harder-hit-covid-19/

4. Barrett P., Chen S. (2021). Social repercussions of pandemics (IMF Working Papers). https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/01/29/Social-Repercussions-of-Pandemics-50041

5. BBC News (2020, April 24). Coronavirus: Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52407177

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3