The coronavirus pandemic has upended our lives in unthinkable ways. Governments worldwide, whether democratic or authoritarian, are taking unprecedented decisions to manage the pandemic raising concerns of government overreach, abuse, inaction and even denial. The notion of an active and engaged citizenry is getting weakened as the survival instinct has mutated the civic ethos so as to empower governments to choose for us what we would have never chosen for ourselves under normal circumstances. Is this process new or have democracies presumed choices earlier as well?
History tells us that choices are relative. They have never been made available universally and exhaustively to all. Race, gender, language, ethnicity based differentiations among others have been a global trend. Yet, democracy has retained its fascination as the principle on which political life is organized or ought to be organized. What lies at the heart of this appeal is the freedom to make choices.
The laissez faire position based on individual dignity is premised on the conviction that: “to be able to choose is a good that is independent of the wisdom of what is chosen.” Freedom of choice is not simply a political nicety; it is liberating and empowering; it enhances self-esteem enabling us to make choices that sculpt our identities thus giving us a certain sense of control over our lives, whether real or imaginary. How do democracies determine what choices are worth pursuing and what are worth denying? Can governments deny a choice under ordinary circumstances on grounds that such choice is offensive, alien, chauvinistic, a security threat, rather a slur on choice itself and then endorse or enforce something fairly similar under circumstances such as the present coronavirus pandemic?
An example would perhaps, simplify matters. If we think through the act of face-covering, there are by and large two ways of screening one’s face. One is with face masks now being worn by men and women worldwide to combat infection against COVID-19 and the other is the Islamic face veil or the ‘niqaab’ worn by Muslim women for religious reasons. After discouraging citizens from wearing masks during the initial stages of the pandemic, even countries with anti-face covering legislations are encouraging face-cover in public places. Face masks, although considered alien to western culture, have been made mandatory in the Czech Republic, Austria, Slovakia, Bosnia-Herzegovina; are being recommended in France, Italy, UK and the United States with citizens being encouraged to use either face masks, or scarves or bandanas in public places. In countries like China, Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan masks have had a ubiquitous presence.
Unlike masks, which are slowly gaining acceptability to contain contagion, the face veil has had a rather chequered history. Seen as oppressive and discriminatory, the face veil has been an object of contempt, pity and bewilderment. Muslim women in the West, despite being ridiculed, fined, arrested and subjected to job losses for the act of covering their faces continue to do the same with educated and accomplished women taking such decisions even in the wake of controversial legislations imposing penalties for non-compliance.
States such as Denmark, Bulgaria, Belgium and France among others have imposed bans on the face veil with several local bans elsewhere in the world. Despite prohibitions, what explains this choice? For most women the decision to veil is the outcome of a spiritual journey that has deepened their relationship with God sometimes even in the wake of family opposition. For some it is the most preferable act to please God and therefore a source of spiritual comfort. For still others, the face veil safeguards them from unwanted, malicious and unscrupulous gaze. Seen from these perspectives the choice is spiritually stimulating, psychologically empowering, socially liberating, enhancing mobility and the quality of their lives.