Sometimes democracy can had you a disadvantage. And this is what has happened to India. China is an authoritarian state and it was able to strictly implement the lockdown measures. But India, being a democratic nation could not prevent the citizens to obey lockdown regulations. And the results are there for everyone to see. Yesterday there were 90,000 new cases in India and for China there were 10 new cases reported yesterday.
Democracy is often associated with pandemics, so the question arises whether there is a role for democracy in dealing with pandemics. A pandemic has the potential to harm democracy. This is because there are "extraordinary" policies taken by the state in a crisis that has the potential to violate democratic norms. The pandemic has also set a precedent for the rise of authoritarianism in various countries. To break the chain of pandemic spread, excessive and repressive actions were carried out. People in times of crisis no longer worry about discrimination, social restrictions and violence by the apparatus, because in the name of health, some elements legally violate democratic norms. Poor leadership has also resulted in the deterioration of pandemic mitigation policies. The decline in countermeasures policies has resulted in a low level of public trust and has led to apathy. As a result, the spread of the virus is difficult to contain.
China has had more success with the outbreak. because of the centralization of power which facilitates coordination in handling. Relations between parties and between institutions are well coordinated, as well as high public trust in the government, thus fostering broad participation in facing crises. But other countries that are not authoritarian have also succeeded in stemming the spread such as New Zealand, Taiwan, South Korea. So the type of political regime does not determine the readiness and success of the country against the pandemic, which determines the quality of leadership.