The relationship between politics and science has never been an easy one. It became specifically obvious after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is by far not the only example.
Contrary to social sciences, natural sciences always seemed to be ahead when it comes to validity, credibility, and access to traceable proofs. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic shows that the outcome of scientific research needs to be communicated and explained to decision-makers, as well as to the general public convincingly. In the case of political science, the purpose is to analyze and interpret the past as well as the present and to draw conclusions for possible future developments or for potential scenarios based on experience.
Politicians and other decision-makers should therefore closely work together with scientists in order to implement measures, i.e. in the case of Covid-19, hindering the spread of the virus and preventing health-care systems from collapsing, or in the case of the climate crisis to create preventive mechanisms. Having said that, it is obvious that this is not how national or domestic politics work. The recent COP26 experience and the pandemic can serve as examples of several problems: one is a lack of political will - for different purposes - and another one is the lack of trust in science and politics. The third reason is the important but underestimated role of emotions. There are additional obstacles when it comes to the validity of scientific findings related to financial sponsoring of research, parameters used, lack of data or industrial or political influence on research institutes. However, in this blog I will try to concentrate on the role of emotions and the lack of trust.
Lack of trust and the role of emotions
It is quite striking that in a recent Eurobarometer survey it became obvious that especially in the German-speaking part of the European Union people are quite skeptical when it comes to the validity of scientific outcomes. This can be observed on a daily basis in the context of anti-Covid-19 measures protests in Austria and Germany, where fake news are circulated and presented along with valid claims of people who are concerned about possible side-effects of the vaccines or simply about their personal freedoms. These fake news target emotions and feed mistrust in society towards science and politics respectively.
Additionally, there is a feeling that politicians are not taking fears seriously and individual claims of personal freedom become disconnected from the framework, which is guaranteeing these personal and collective rights and freedoms. In the case of Austria, this is used by the right-wing populist party FPÖ to alienate people from established facts – for their own political purposes. For example, in November 2021, the leader of FPÖ, Herbert Kickel, publicly praised the deworming medicine for horses, Ivermectin, as an appropriate means to combat Covid-19. Needless to say that there is no valid medical indication that this would have any effect on Covid-19 symptoms. As ridiculous as this might sound, within days, the deworming medication for horses in Austria was sold out.
There is a general misunderstanding of prioritization of individual vs. collective rights. International human rights law recognizes that few rights are absolute, whereas for most rights and freedoms reasonable limits may be placed. Most people might think that, for example, the right to life is an absolute human right, but we see already in the right to self-defense that this is not always the case. It is absolutely legal to kill a person in self-defense, therefore his/her right to live cannot be absolute. Very few rights are absolute and cannot be limited for any reason, like the freedom from slavery, freedom from torture or the right to recognition before the law. However, importantly, this distinction shall not hide the fact that limitations of human rights must be argued very cautiously and need to surpass the proportionality test. This means that the limitation must be proportionate to the threat, the measure must be appropriate and reasonable and should be the least possible interference in order to reach the goal.
After the situation in Austrian hospitals and for personnel in the health sector deteriorated due to increasing numbers of patients in hospitals and in intensive care due to Covid-19 in fall 2021, Austria made a very unpopular choice by introducing compulsory vaccination starting from February 2022. In general, individual rights can be curtailed to protect the rights (to health and physical integrity) of the collective. Therefore, an individual’s right not to get vaccinated is in conflict with the right to health and physical integrity of the collective. If fulfilling the above-mentioned proportionality criteria, compulsory vaccination is not problematic from the perspective of basic rights.
The discussion about compulsory vaccination led to another outbreak of protests of various groups who joined forces to demonstrate against the plans of the government: compulsory vaccination for everyone above 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of movement and assembly, up to the rejection of wearing masks and social distancing. Without judging the different motives why people went to the streets it was surprising who participated. The big majority consisted of people concerned about possible side-effects and their human rights which they see endangered by the compulsory vaccination, but also by other anti-Covid measures. However, one could also spot violent right-wing extremists and groups traditionally more affiliated with the left, like for example, esoterics. These protests, which gathered around 40 000-50 000 people in Vienna every Saturday for a couple of weeks in December 2021 and January 2022, have been highly driven by emotions and a feeling of disrespect towards personal choices and mistrust in the government – fueled by the right-wing opposition party FPÖ who is the only party in the parliament that publicly encourages people not to get vaccinated (long before compulsory vaccination was even discussed).
In general, what could be observed, is that a part of the society, even though by far not the largest one, feels excluded from the national discourse on how to proceed against the spread of the virus. However, it is also crucial that all these different groups skeptical about vaccination have not been properly addressed in the government’s communication. Instead of trying to convince with arguments, the Austrian government decided to introduce a potpourri of independent measures, like excluding non-vaccinated or not-recovered individuals (so-called 2G) from public life (restaurants, sports clubs, theatres, or museums), providing monetary incentives in form of a vaccination lottery and ultimately, introducing compulsory vaccination. All these means have a potential in general, but lack an overall political strategy. To exemplify, the government held a press conference introducing a vaccination lottery (which they now are not able to deliver upon due to organizational problems) on the same day that the national council agreed on a compulsory vaccination for everyone living in Austria. No matter how people see compulsory vaccination as a strategy, it seems obvious that introducing additional incentives on the same day as deciding on compulsory vaccination does not give the impression that compulsory vaccination is the ultima ratio in this specific timeline. This approach implies that politicians think that people still can be motivated via financial means to get a vaccine. So why introduce a contested measure like compulsory vaccination at the same time?
It got even more grotesque when – in the same week as the law on compulsory vaccination was passed – the government decided to ease rules for non-vaccinated people in public life. “It is intellectually not understandable how compulsory vaccination can be introduced at the same time when rules for non-vaccinated (but tested) people are eased”, the mayor of Vienna, Michael Ludwig, stated afterwards. It would essentially mean that people who are tested or recovered can visit a restaurant legally, but if the police ask for a vaccination certificate, they would be there illegally. These strategies surely do not restore trust in the management of the pandemic, which is already damaged. Additionally, the new Covid-19 variant Omicron – also due to the fact that the majority of people are already vaccinated or have antibodies – supposedly is less dangerous. The question which political decision-makers should ask themselves is: is the specific measure appropriate to reach the envisaged goal of 90% of vaccinated people?
Other ideas how to convince people were also on the table. E.g. providing medical counseling for those who are insecure rather than force them with a fragmentary law on compulsory vaccination which has many exceptions. One of the exceptions e.g. is that pregnant women are excluded from the law, even though research shows that the risks for non-vaccinated pregnant women are specifically high. A clinic in Vienna, Ottakring, revealed that from mid-September 2021 until the end of the year only 14% of pregnant women they supervised were vaccinated. Of the 250 pregnant women who were hospitalized during this time, 15 came into intensive care, one died – all of them were not vaccinated[1]. It is scientifically, therefore, hardly understandable why pregnant women should be excluded from compulsory vaccination and the signal this approach is sending to the people is more than mixed.
It is admittedly fair to say that the lack of a comprehensive strategy in how to deal with the virus in general makes it very difficult to develop a means of communication to reach the part of the society which is concerned, but not radicalized. Whereas the majority of the scientists tried to explain the nature and possible evolvement of the virus, they never claimed to be responsible for the political part, which is to identify the means of communication, target specific groups (migrants, pregnant women), introduce comprehensive measures which aim at weakening the impact of the pandemic on the health-care system. The intermingling of party-politics with necessary precautions for every citizen made the discussion more emotional and increased mistrust in political decision-making. In combination with general low trust in science it is a dangerous mixture for a democracy during an international health crisis. Whereas the government asks every citizen to take responsibility in their daily life and to show solidarity by following the introduced measures, politicians should take into account their responsibility towards all Austrian society and to everyone who lives in Austria as well. It is essential for politicians to listen to scientists and to find a common strategy how to convince people with arguments, not by force. If force, however, is the ultimo ratio, it has to be explained comprehensively and communicated transparently in order to justify an interference in individual personal choices, which are also based on human rights.
[1] See Die Presse from 9. February 2022: https://www.diepresse.com/6096889/impfquote-bei-schwangeren-niedriger-als-bei-rest-der-bevoelkerungv
Mag. Stephanie Fenkart MA is Director of the International Institute for Peace (IIP) since 2016. She has an MA in Development Studies from the University of Vienna and an MA in Human Rights from the Danube University, Krems. She is furthermore a member of the Advisory Committee for Strategy and Security Policy of the Scientific Commission at the Austrian Armed Forces (BMLV). She is also a board member of the NGO Committee for Peace, Vienna.