Fear Of Losing Fundamental Freedom: COVID-19 Crisis In Pakistan
With cases of the COVID-19 pandemic being reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) globally, the lives of millions around the world have been impacted. Emergence of a new infectious disease often prompts governments to consider quarantines. Nations where people are living in poverty and psychosocial adversities are statistically at high risk for contagion. People tend to their immediate needs and often do not see the long-term implications especially if life is about thriving from one mealtime to another as a survival strategy.
In Pakistan, even though the state covers the costs of government services, nearly all users of government facilities pay out of pocket. Under the 18th Amendment of the Constitution of Pakistan, the health care services are the obligations of the provisional government except for the federal area. The health care delivery system includes public (three-layered approach: primary, secondary, and tertiary), private, civil society, and philanthropic contributions (Kumar S, Bano S 2017). The private sector attends to 70% of the population. According to the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), there is a list of offences regarding public health safety (see Notes below). Recommended strategies of social distancing and frequent handwashing to control the spread of COVID-19 are not easy for populations living in highly dense communities, obscure housing, compromised sanitation and limited access to clean water (The Lancet 2020). Although different countries are in different phases of the COVID-19 crisis action plan, many countries are implementing emergency lockdown protocols and restricting people's movements.
Something I only imagined and saw in Hollywood's movies based on either a virus attack or an alien invasion. Closest to reality were movies based on war zones and conflict-ridden areas.
Having said that, Pakistan is in the containment phase of the COVID-19 crisis. In the interstices of this crisis, the situation in Pakistan has drawn together many in protest who outrightly deny the social, environmental, and economic consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. Religion is seen as a major force of influence for the masses within the society, though addressing religious aspects within the current crisis itself is a tremendous challenge. While other Islamic states have issued a fatwa — a legal opinion on Islamic jurisprudence — paralleling adherence to public health directives to religious duty, religious clerics in Pakistan continue to refer to the pandemic as a result of ones' sins and not following the teachings of Islam. Persuasion by using forceful and controlling language is more likely to be perceived as a threat and elicits more reactance than noncontrolling linguistics such as consider, can, could, and may (Miller, Lane, Deatrick, Young, & Potts, 2007).
In the light of the COVID-19 crisis, the use of more concrete, low-controlling language may offer the best solution to reduce the ambiguity and reactance created by overtly persuasive public health appeals. Decisions by authorities have also been a part of the problem. This dilemma is illustrated by examining the disjointed efforts of political leadership in dealing with the current COVID-19 crisis in Pakistan. Instead of showing a united front in the face of this adversity, a contrast has been repeatedly seen between federal and provincial strategies. Sadly, despite the evidence-based arguments by clinicians, public health experts; and religious clerics highlighting the high-risk consequences of the COVID-19 crisis, the credibility of these sources is questioned. Although a choice offered in postscript has shown to increase the credibility of the cause, the attempt of regulatory authorities by including sociocultural agents and community engagement has not yielded fruitful results. The strength of the threat becomes a less critical factor in predicting people's reaction when mood and emotions come into play (Ziegler, Schlett, and Aydinly 2013). Authorities and deep-rooted capitalist strategies have imposed a partial lockdown instead of announcing concrete measures, mishandled Shiite pilgrims who returned to Pakistan from Iran, sent mixed signals regarding the ban on mosque prayers and large religious gatherings.
Generally, people are concerned with health-related matters. However, it has been seen that warnings of potential health problems and measures imposed by the states, often lead to dismissive and defensive reactions rather than engaging in health-directed actions (Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. 1992). Such reactions may stem from a fear of losing freedom. The resultant dismissal of complying with the health warning for them reduces their threat to autonomy. This phenomenon is called Psychological Reactance (PR). It is "an unpleasant motivational arousal that emerges when people experience a threat to or loss of their free behaviors" (Brehm, JW. 1966; Brehm, S. S., 1981). At an individual level, people's experience of reactance strongly depends on the most attainable goals and values when the threat occurs. In the COVID-19 case, fundamental goals and values such as education, the right to freely move, and religious practices are threatened. Two main factors that determine the reaction to these announced health-related measures are the absoluteness and self-relevance. If the threat is absolute, people rationalize it. If it is not, people respond with reactance. Both become stronger when the threat is self-relevant (Laurin, Kay, and Fitzsimons 2012). Be that as it may, individualistic societies are more affected by threats at an individual and personal level of freedom. However, collectivistic societies get more affected by threats to their collective and community level of freedom (Jonas et al. 2009).
Conclusion: An acute outbreak can understandably instill fear in most individuals. These fears could be stemming from the threat of losing freedoms and its possible social implications. There is a risk of focus-shifting to look for an external factor to assigning the blame. There are negative consequences of this blame game i.e. reduced rates of compliance by the masses. People have been forcibly quarantined, despite showing no COVID-19 symptoms. This has been attributed to the spike of prejudices and biases. During a contagion crisis. black-and-white thinking of the masses makes things feel less uncertain and helps them restore feelings of control (Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). As much as they appear sheer lack of common sense and a superficial, selfish approach, such risky behaviours at a time of crisis signal a deeper psychological process that might be operating a socially conditioned peer behaviour. However, it's important to understand how these psychological processes have a potential to distort information processing and interpretation as well as hinder the country's ability at large to respond to the COVID-19 crisis effectively.
References
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. Academic Press
Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 669-679.
Miller, Claude H.; Lane, Lindsay T.; Deatrick, Leslie M.; Young, Alice M.; Potts, Kimberly A. (2007). "Psychological Reactance and Promotional Health Messages: The Effects of Controlling Language, Lexical Concreteness, and the Restoration of Freedom". Human Communication Research. 33 (2): 219–240\. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00297.
Jonas, E., Graupmann, V., Niesta Kayser, D., Zanna, M., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Frey, D. (2009). Culture, self, and the emergence of reactance: Is there a "universal" freedom?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1068–1080.doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.005
Trafimov, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,649–655.
Laurin, K., Kay, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2012). Reactanceversus rationalization: Divergent responses to policies that constrain freedom.Psychological Science, 23, 205–209.doi: 10.1177/0956797611429468
Richards, A. S., & Banas, J. A. (2015). Inoculating against reactance to persuasive health messages. Health Communi-cation, 30, 451–460\. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2013.867005
Roubroeks, M., Ham, J., & Midden, C. (2011). When artificial social agents try to persuade people: The role of social agency on the occurrence of psychological reactance. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3, 155–165.doi: 10.1007/s12369-010-0088-1
Kumar S, Bano S. 2017\. Comparison and Analysis of Health Care Delivery Systems: Pakistan
Advocate Fazila Amber is a Corporate and Human Rights Litigator at the High Court of Pakistan. She is a law graduate of the University of Sindh, Jamshoro and a Business graduate from Isra University. She has extensive legal experience in the areas of corporate, commercial, employment and human rights law.
She has been involved in various advocacy initiatives and pro bono litigation. Ms. Amber is part of Kiran Sahara - a volunteer group of lawyers supporting the SWAN program by Kiran Foundation. She also supports and provides legal assistance to the victims of cyber-crime and domestic violence. She has experience of social activism and has previously co-led various community-based child welfare projects.
As a woman litigator from interior Sindh, Ms. Amber has developed a profound understanding of implicit as well as overt gender discrimination. She also is an abstract painter and a conceptual photographer. Most of her artwork portrays the unsaid and forbidden fabric of society. Her photography in Culture and Heritage has been recognized nationally.
