Cases of COVID-19 are increasing in Brazil as the more transmissible P1 variant spreads across the country.In Brazil, the federal government has attempted to gain herd immunity by contagion in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. So far, this has resulted in the untimely deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Jair Bolsonaro, the Brazilian president, led the strategy to encourage COVID-19 to spread. Brazil has since descended into an unparalleled health disaster, as predicted.
Brazil accounted for almost one-third of all daily COVID-19 deaths in the world last week, despite accounting for just 2.7 percent of the global population. There were 12.8 million cases and over 325 thousand deaths on April 2nd. The week of March 21-27 saw a regular 0.8 percent increase in cases and a 1.9 percent increase in deaths; lethality has increased from 2% to 3.3 percent since late 2020. The new variants circulating in Brazil have caused grave concern in neighbouring countries.
Most of the concern is being applied to the P1 version, related to the Brazilian Amazon. If Brazil cannot regulate its high transmission rate, analysts fear the country’s healthcare disaster could endanger the world. If the virus is left to spread naturally, it may provide the perfect breeding ground for new and even more lethal strains.
Brazil’s neighbours have sealed their borders to the country in a futile effort to deter new variants from spreading into the rest of the continent and harming vaccine efficacy. Even in the pandemic’s darkest times, the far-right leader appears to ignore warnings from health authorities for a nationwide lockdown, criticises the use of masks, ignores evidence, suggests unproven treatments and minimises Brazil’s soaring death toll. He still upholds a false opposition between the economy and health, claiming that lockdown measures would cause starvation, unemployment, and social chaos.
Bolsonaro continues hosting public conferences, encouraging science denialism, and defending the early use of unsuccessful medications against covid-19. The so-called “Covid kit,” marketed by the federal government, contains hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin, which are anticoagulants, and can induce haemorrhage, renal failure, and arrhythmias. In Sao Paulo, at least five patients who were prescribed the “early treatment” have joined the liver transplant line and three have died from hepatitis.
Experts also confirm that a shortage of social distancing steps has provided the perfect condition for variants to mutate. Since June 2020, Brazil’s infections and fatalities reached a constant rate of nearly 1,000 deaths a day, causing many to believe the worst was over. For months, Brazilians commuted on crowded public transport and filled its beaches, bars and nightclubs. As Brazilians tended to ignore containment procedures, the P1 mutant hatched, and it is thought to have appeared in the Brazilian Amazon at the end of 2020. In just a few weeks, Manaus’ health-care system has all but failed. According to the Fiocruz research institute, the P1 version now accounts for more than 80% of cases in the two most populated states of Rio de Janeiro and So Paulo. It was 0 percent three months ago.
By late March, an alleged “self-coup” attempt by Bolsonaro failed against the resistance of Armed Forces, which have opposed the President’s intention to militarily intervene in the states adopting quarantine measures. Nevertheless, the President still engages in an all-out war against governors and mayors, whom he labels as “dictators” who violate citizens’ rights and harm the economy.
The Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) announced that the P1 variant has been found to be leading the second wave in at least 15 countries in the Americas. Experts contend that closing their boundaries would have no impact now variants of risk have entered.
According to the international criminal jurisprudence, the extensive and systemic use of coercion to force the public to act a certain way, according to a preconceived strategy, which implements substantial public and private means, may detail an assault on the civilian population. The fact stands that, if the decision to attempt herd immunity from COVID-19 by encouraging contagion to propagate unregulated remains unpunished, it is likely to become an extraordinary way for potential rulers to injure marginalised people by ignoring public health interventions.
Within less than a week of one another in the month of March in the United States, there have been 2 major shootings leaving many innocent individuals dead. The 7th mass killing so far this year, it indicates that the tool (guns) that caused the deaths of the individuals has been amongst the subject of a larger debate once again on how the country can best manage events like these to stop reoccurring. President Biden has brought forward legislation to address the issues around gun ownership in the US, but getting enough support across the Senate to pass any significant laws will prove extremely difficult.
In the state of Colorado, lied a shopping plaza in the north-central city of Boulder. During the afternoon at around 14:30 on 22 March, a gunman took the lives of 10 people including a police officer named Eric Talley, at a grocery store. The attack was live-streamed by witnesses as well as being seen to have been uploaded on to YouTube. It had ended with the police detaining an injured suspect. What is left to be known is the motivation of the attack, nor knowing any other details regarding the other individuals who had lost their lives.
Just less than a week before the attack on Colorado, 8 people of Asian descent were also shot and killed in multiple shootings in Atlanta. At around 17:00 on 16 March , two people were shot and killed at Young Asian Massage in Acworth, Cherokee County. Another two people were taken to hospital and died, as well as many others wounded. Less than an hour later, police were called at a supposed robbery at Gold Spa in north Atlanta. There, 3 women were shot dead, as well as another spa named Aromatherapy Spa they found another woman who had been killed. All 4 of the victims were Asian women. Police had studied CCTV footage from nearby and located the shooter, Robert Aaron Long around 150 miles south of Atlanta where he was arrested during a manhunt. Despite no official motivation being established from authorities for why Long had carried out these attacks, there is a fear that the crimes were racially motivated.
Despite the motivations for both shootings being mixed, it does show the dangers and extreme loss of life caused by shootings in the US. According to the Gun Violence Archive, in 2020, there have been a verified 19,387 homicide-related deaths reported in the country including over 24,000 suicides. Regarding the large number of deaths and loss of life due to the mass shootings from the use of guns in the United States, President Biden has become further motivated to take action.
Starting this month, President Biden has argued for serious gun reforms. Despite the protections reinforced by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, President Biden has pushed forward a plan to ban assault weapons and high-capacity gun magazines, as well as to end any potential loopholes in background checks when trying to apply for gun licences.
As much as this is important legislation brought forward by President Biden, similar sentiment has been made and repeated throughout various times following major mass shootings in the US where little gets done. Due to the 50/50 split between republicans and democrats currently in the senate, it makes passing any gun control laws difficult, as many Republicans, including former US President Trump feel as if it is impending on their constitutional right.
As a way of avoiding the obstacles involving congress, President Biden has most recently planned to enact an executive order, targeting the banning of homemade “ghost guns” which have no serial numbers and therefore make them difficult to trace. President Biden is expecting to enact these measures through an executive order, essentially bypassing the previous issues he had within congress. He has given the Justice Department 30 days to come up with a new rule to reduce the number of “ghost guns” and further proves that a strong effort is being made in moving in the right direction against the prevention of further mass shootings.
When you think of Paris the image of youth gang violence is probably not the first thing that pops up into your mind. The city that is known for its history, culture, and food has made headlines recently for a very different reason. Over the past several months, the suburbs of Paris have experienced numerous incidents of youth violence that often led to lives lost. In mid-January, around 30 youths from rival gangs aged between 12 and 18 years old, joined to inflict violence on each other. The fight left a 15-year-old dead from a stab wound. The violence focused attention on the issue of youth violence, which is not particularly new, but is increasingly worrying for French officials and communities across Paris.
Although the major city has had a relationship with violent crime in the past this new spat of violence is affecting the city like never before, partly due to the young age of those being drawn into violence. Teenagers from all backgrounds are taking part in violence that has led to numerous injuries and at least 7 deaths.Tensions among teenagers are heightened and the cause of the tensions come from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, nationwide curfew, and social media, which is fueling boredom and frustration. France has had a range of coronavirus restrictions since March 2020, along with many other nations, and as recently as March 31, 2021, President Macron announced a new lockdown, which is likely to be in place until the end of April. The country’s 6pm to 6am curfew is likely another cause to the increase in violence. Community leaders, coaches, and other positive role models are no longer able to meet with young people turning to violence because of the COVID-19 restrictions.
Interior ministry statistics show a rise in gang violence among young people. There were 357 recorded incidents in 2020 compared to the 288 in 2019. The interior ministry has recorded 74 gangs throughout the country with more than half in the region of Paris. However, the police force is relucent to calling them “gangs” because they lack organization and structure. It is often just a group of teenagers who are from the same arrondissement, school, or block of flats, and share the same economic standing. Typically, they have a core group of five or six people. Many come from underprivileged environments and tend to have difficulties at school, so this results in young people banding together because it gives them a sense of identity as well as protects them. This sense of identity is one that might have been found in sports or after school programs- which are no longer active.
The most recent killing that rocked the nation was that of a 14-year-old girl whose body was found in the Seine river. Two teenagers, both 15 years old, have been arrested for the murder. The mother of the detained boy alerted the police after her son confessed, he and his friend had hit a girl causing her to fall into the Seine. Tensions rose between the three teenagers after compromising photos of the victim were shared on the popular messaging service Snapchat. It is often heard that bullying starts in the classroom or playground, but with the pandemic students have not been in school for quite some time. In recent years, particularly months, the bullying has moved online. Teenagers no longer have activities to keep them busy after school and combined with the increased amount of time people are spending online, violence is an activity that is keeping them busy. This is just one example of a series of incidents spread across Paris. Others include two teenagers, aged 14 and 16, who were left fighting for their lives following a gang brawl in Champigny-sur-Marne and just a couple weeks earlier two men, aged 17 and 27, were arrested after the shooting death of a 15-year-old boy in Bondy.
The government has sounded the alarm over the surge in youth gang violence in the Paris suburbs, which are drawing in children as young as 12. Top government officials have vowed to tackle the problem but have yet to publish any plans. Ministers in education, justice, and security recently met on March 12, 2021 to discuss how to handle the influx of violence and a new security directive aimed at combatting youth gang violence is to be introduced in May. All attention will be on France when the new directive is launched to see if it decreases the number of violent crimes. Violence among youth is not unique to France, many western European nations are dealing with some type of increase in violence, whether it be domestic violence, right-wing violence, or violent protests, there seems to be a general consensus that boredom and “lockdown fatigue” has played a role. It is growing evermore difficult allowing people access to their social outlets when many western European nations are in the beginning stages of their third wave of the virus.
The government has focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, nationwide curfew, and social media being the cause for the heightened tensions among teens. Covid-19- related restrictions, the closure of sport facilities, gyms, and other social outlets has complicated the situation by fueling boredom and frustration. The implications of the continuing national and regional lockdowns, curfews, and more time to spend online has led to an increase in violence among youth that France does not yet know how to handle. The Interior Minister sent police reinforcements to some neighborhoods but communities throughout France that have been affected by violence are calling for sport facilities and social outlets be opened up. For communities across France, the solution to the violence is not an increase in police presence but instead the government working with schools and community groups on finding a way to give teenagers the forms of social support they usually rely on, like sport facilities or youth clubs, while also balancing the ongoing health crisis.
On 23 March 2021, Israelis took to the polls to vote in their fourth elections in almost 2 years. The Jewish State has consistently failed to form a government from Israel’s 120-seat Knesset (Hebrew for “Assembly”), and so this time around Israelis hope to break the deadlock. Israel’s representational system requires a majority of at least 61 seats for a government to be formed. Such majorities can be formed either by one party or through a coalition of several – the former a rarity, and the latter with regularity. With this fourth election, one thing promising is that ideologically-aligned blocs of the smaller parties have emerged and begun to converge around the larger parties in Israel. For example, on the one side you have the right-wing ‘Netanyahu’bloc (tallied as holding 53 seats), and on the other side you have the centrist ‘Change’ bloc (tallied as holding 57) .This appears to foreshadow a return to a more stable 2 party system, with the 2 blocs resembling something like a broad-church, 2 party system – predicated on ideological convergence or a spectrum of ideas. Therefore any government formed – at least from this election anyway – will almost certainly be rooted in such blocs.
However, the opposite point can also be argued: that Israeli politics has never been so complicated and ideologically divided, and thus the makeup of any new government cannot be predicted. This is evident in that there are way too many parties on the scene with competing interests and ideological non-negotiables. What’s more is even those parties – and the Members of Knesset (MKs) who lead them – with ideological similarities and who share the same political roots or careers, are oftentimes the most vehemently opposed to allying themselves with each other than with parties dissimilar to themselves. But all points aside, whatever mess the political scene seems to be on paper, it no way compares to the reality of the situation and how it will pan out. This is perhaps why 3 days on from Election Day and since all the votes have been tallied, Israel is still no closer to having formed a government. That being said, for the purposes of humouring oneself, if Israel were to form a government what would it look like? Examples of parties and key actors will be referenced throughout to illustrate theories.
First and foremost when speaking of potential coalitions, what seems most likely is that any government coalition formed will either be headed by or deeply reliant upon Netanyahu’s The Likud party (currently projected as having 30 seats) or MK Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid party (currently projected as having 17 seats). This is because being the biggest parties in the Knesset, their buy-in will be needed in order to ensure the best chance of there being a strong majority in the Knesset necessary to form a coalition government that lasts. But an even more obvious reason why it would be logical to assume either party will head any new coalition government is the President of Israel nominally tasks the leader of the biggest party to have the first opportunity to build a coalition.
It is only in rare, exceptional circumstances that the President allows a non-dominant party leader to have a crack at building a coalition – this is because in such circumstances it would first require the agreement of at least 61 MKs to sanction a non-dominant party leader to build a coalition. However, in this election there is a possibility that this could happen due to the frustrations of both Israelis and MKs with the current state of Israeli politics. Being desperate to form a government after three unsuccessful elections, MKs and the President of Israel might opt for a third way to resolving this political crisis. This point will be returned to later in this article.
Meanwhile back to the point about the likelihood of a Likud-led government, judging from both past precedent and ideological sympathies, it seems highly likely that any Likud government would have or at the very least would try to garner the support of both Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox Jewish) parties, United Torah Judaism (UTJ) (currently projected as holding 7 seats) and Shas (currently projected as holding 9 seats). Both have been beholden coalition partners in most of Netanyahu’s terms in office. Both groups are fundamentalist and very much value the Jewish character of state affairs. Both groups also seek to uphold the interests of Ultra-Orthodox segment of Israeli society, which makes up about 18 percent of Israeli society. Because Netanyahu has in his political past ceded legislation to such parties and upheld their interests, both parties have an incentive to maintain the status quo – vis-à-vis keeping the Prime Minister and Likud in power. This means any Likud government will likely include these parties, so as to mutually reinforce each other. Additionally, the values of the Haredi parties are so far removed from the ‘Change’ bloc – who predicate their movement on secularisation in opposition to the interest of the Haredim, universal interest of all segments of Israeli society, and centre-left values – and thus it seems very unlikely that these religious parties will ally with Yair Lapid and his party to form a coalition.
However, that is not to say that Yesh Atid definitively will not attempt to pander to the Haredi parties and be successful in doing so – on the contrary, this might be a viable option, as if the ‘Change’ bloc compromises its values to be more inclusive of the Haredim, they might just be able to entice them to abandon the ‘Netanyahu’ bloc in favour of joining their coalition. In fact, if the ‘Change’ bloc was successful in even bringing one of the parties on board, that would be more than enough to secure a stable government coalition – the bloc’s 57 seats would increase to 64 if UTJ joined, or 66 if Shas did. On the subject of Yesh Atid, it is remotely possible that they could entice one of the non-aligned so-called “kingmaker” parties to join their bloc – namely Yamina, but also perhaps newly-formed Arab party Ra’am.
HaYamin HaChadash (Hebrew for the New Right) – typically styled as Yamina – currently holds 7 seats in the Knesset. A national-religious party – such parties are mixed both secular nationalist MKs and Orthodox MKs who are more moderate and engaged with Israeli society than their Haredi co-religionists – Yamina nominally would have allied itself with the ‘Netanyahu’ bloc. However, its leader Naftali Bennett seeks to see the long-serving Prime Minister Netanyahu vacate the political scene and make way for a new generation of political leadership.
What’s more, to complicate the situation Bennett’s former party The Jewish Home recently split from the national-religious camp, after he fell out with his number 2, the more inflammatory Betzalel Smotrich, over differences in direction and perspective. Bennett, the more moderate and liberal politician went on to form Yamina, whilst Smotrich ventured further right to form the Religious-Zionists party – the latter sits firmly inside Netanyahu’s bloc, currently holding 6 seats, and had already signed a surplus-votes deal with The Likud. Both of these factors make Yamina a prime target for the ‘Change’ bloc to bring into their coalition. However, Bennett in the past has said he would not sit in a coalition led by Yair Lapid, and that he would not work with Arab parties – which would not work to hold the ‘Change’ bloc together (i.e. Joint List). That being said, Bennett has not ruled out working with Yair Lapid’s party – which suggests he would be open to joining them in some form of a coalition, albeit with Yair Lapid not being the coalition leader / potential next Prime Minister.
Similarly, Bennett also remarked in his speech to his supporters on Election Day that “Now is the time to heal, and heal the rifts within the nation” and that he would seek to do what is best for Israel – namely fostering an Israel that works for all Israelis across the religious, ethnic and political spectrum. From this speech one can garner either 1 of 3 things: he is seriously considering working with other parties outside of his natural inclination (i.e. those in the centre and on the left); he is considering putting his differences with Netanyahu aside to back the right-wing bloc, or that he is edging gearing himself up to becoming the Prime Minister of the new government. Of the second option, it is entirely possible that Bennett could chose to back the ‘Netanyahu’ bloc – albeit not without seeking concessions from the government (e.g. being rewarded with the post of Defense Minister or Foreign Minister for himself or for his Yamina compatriot, MK Ayelet Shaked). He could also request a rotational government with the Prime Minister – which would allow him to become Prime Minister. However, the third option – that he is preparing to become sole Prime Minister of a new government – seems more plausible.
The latter point takes us back to the scenario mentioned earlier: that 61 MKs could suggest the President nominate another Knesset member to form a coalition. Bennett is currently tipped as an outsider to do this. He is the possible third way. Again, the likelihood of this happening is very slim – as it would require the buy-in of many MKs. However, if it did happen, aside from the MKs of Yamina, I predict the MKs that would back it would be those from Yesh Atid, then flanked by MKs from the newly-formed right-wing party, New Hope (6 seats), and then also perhaps Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party (7 seats). It is also possible that some in the Religious-Zionists party could be enticed to back him should this scenario pan out.
But anyway, why Yesh Atid first? Because the leading party of the ‘Change’ bloc that is literally called “There is a future” – and whose leader in his Election Day speech rejoiced at a non-right wing dominant coalition not being possible – would do anything to ensure Netanyahu leaves office and that Smotrich’s party in particular does not get to be in a government. Therefore ceding to Bennett would be a small yet safe choice to make to realise Yesh Atid’s dreams. But, it would be ultimately up to Yair Lapid, and whether he would sacrifice his dream of becoming a Prime Minister for the sake preventing Netanyahu retaining office via enabling another premier candidate.
With regards to why New Hope, the party was formed by a high-ranking member of Likud, Gideon Sa’ar, who grew frustrated by Netanyahu’s leadership. Other subsequent members of Likud joined the party, as did a couple from a smaller centre-right party, as well as one from Likud rival and centrist party, Blue and White. Thus already, once can see that the members of this party have an incentive to keep Netanyahu out of government by any means necessary. The 2 parties also ideologically align somewhat – both parties are right-wing and staunchly nationalist. Additionally, in January 2021 the party signed a surplus-votes deal with Yamina, and thus in a sense New Hope is already beholden to Bennett. However, Sa’ar has not ruled out sitting in a rotational government with Netanyahu, and therefore support for Bennett might not be so clear cut. With regards to Yisrael Beiteinu, they share a similar disdain for Netanyahu’s leadership – with leader Lieberman having experienced it first-hand as a former Likud member, and as a coalition partner of Netanyahu. Lieberman already has ruled out working with Netanyahu. This could entice them to back Bennett as a right-wing rival of Netanyahu.
Aside from the Bennett situation, going back to Netanyahu’s bloc, it still does not have enough seats to make a coalition – and still will not, even if Yamina joins them. This means that the bloc would have to either entice the other right-wing parties in the ‘Change’ bloc to join them – either New Hope or Yisrael Beiteinu – or perhaps even the new Arab Ra’am party. It seems clear that Yisrael Beiteinu MKs will not defect to Likud or the bloc, but perhaps the New Hope MKs might? This could be the case, as the political ambition of MKs in this new party – which I add did not do as well as they expected – might entice them into backing Netanyahu. In fact, it seems likely that if they did back him for Prime Minister, New Hope MKs would be rewarded with high positions in Israel’s Cabinet. Therefore, this too is a possibility.
Lastly, to the plight of the Arab parties: Ra’am (4 seats) and the Joint List of Arab parties (6 seats). The former party split from the latter in late January 2021. Ra’am was not expected to gain many seats in the Knesset, but has actually exceeded expectations. Meanwhile, the Joint List has lost seats – both to Ra’am, but also likely to Blue and White, Meretz and Avodah in the ‘Change’ bloc. This is likely due to social issues in the Arab sector of Israeli society, and the perception that the joint alliance has not done enough to improve the situation of Arabs in Israel. Most, if not all, the parties in both the ‘Netanyahu’ bloc have ruled out working with Arab parties. On the contrary, Joint List sits inside the ‘Change’ bloc, and Yair Lapid sees them as worthy coalition partners. This is a plus-plus for the ‘Change’ bloc.
Meanwhile, Ra’am is believed to be somewhat more open to being in government, but has yet to officially publicise its position. Therefore it is a case of waiting and seeing what they will decide. This makes them a possible, albeit unlikely target for the ‘Netanyahu’ bloc. But, it should be noted that Yamina, New Hope and most certainly the Religious-Zionists have ruled out working with Arab parties. Therefore this solution is unlikely to work. It should also be noted that should the ‘Change’ bloc on the other hand court Ra’am to join their bloc, this would help them to achieve an unstable coalition government. However, a couple of parties in the ‘Change’ bloc have ruled out working with them. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the Arab parties will feature in any new government, should one form. However, the ironic thing is that the Ra’am party might just be answer to the bloc’s problems. Should the bloc secure defections from other parties and then manage to accept Ra’am into the bloc, then Netanyahu could form a coalition – albeit an unstable one.
Tanzania’s former President John Magufuli earned the title of one of the most prominent COVID-19 sceptics amongst world leaders. The country had stopped reporting case and death statistics in May 2020. The registers number on the World Health Organisation’s Covid dashboard remain at 509 cases and 21 deaths. Magufuli dismissed containment measures such as masks and social distancing, and even refused to order vaccinations for his citizens, therefore little is known about the state of the virus within Tanzania.
Magufuli passed away on the 17th March 2021, after speculations about his wellbeing due to his disappearance from the public view on the 27th February. The news was broken by Tanzania’s Vice President Samia Suluhu Hassan on state television. His administration had not spoken on his health and whereabouts until then, and merely questioning or spreading rumours about the president’s condition resulted in arrest. The government was clearly trying to buy time while the president was very ill or already dead. Magufuli’s passing was attributed to “heart problems” but many still suspect that he succumbed to COVID-19.
When the country recorded its first case, some containment measures were taken such as closing schools, limiting public gatherings, even encouraging people not to travel within or outside Dar es Salaam and other regions. However, the approach since then has been completely different.
In May 2020, Magufuli triggered conspiracy theories in an effort to investigate the quality of testing kits and to question the amount of positive cases in the country. He sent non-human samples from fruit and animals to the country’s main lab which came back positive for COVID-19. When sharing the results with the nation, the president stated that this likely meant some individuals were being tested positive when in fact they were not infected with coronavirus – de-emphasising COVID-19’s risks.
This shift in public health messaging triggered its neighbour Zambia to shut its borders with the country due to apprehension over Tanzania’s lack of COVID-19 response. Magufuli’s leadership style put not only many Tanzanians in danger, but the lack of containment was also harming the region’s chances of stopping its spread.
After the shift in messaging and the abandonment of precautions, many businesses soon reopened and by June people had returned to normalcy. The president did not fear this virus, and this was reflected in society.
In January 2021, Magufuli announced the country would not be ordering vaccines, as they “are not good, if they were, then the white man would have brought vaccines for HIV/AIDS.” He also added that his country would not be guinea pigs in vaccination trials. President Magufuli presented himself as an African nationalist waging war against foreign powers. He used the disease as warfare while hinting at the virus as a western plot:
“So many times, I have insisted that not everything that you are given is good. There could be people being used, that equipment could be used… but it could also be sabotage because this is warfare,”
Science Vs. Religion
Magufuli was a former chemistry and math teacher, and had a doctorate in chemistry so with his scientific background, his decision to rely on faith and herbal medication rather than evidence was a shock to many of his neighbours and the international community.
He urged citizens to pray to their individual gods, in mosques and churches, so that God will hear them. Magufuli had also backed traditional medication, including steam inhalation to fight the virus, despite the WHO saying there is no evidence that these treatments work. Herbal remedies are a common feature in many African nations with the WHO showing that 80% of Africans use them. He had even ordered a planeload of herbal potions that were popularised in Madagascar. Magufuli clearly viewed African nations as allies, as opposed to the West and preferred to deal with them when seeking out medical remedies.
A surprise change in messaging came in mid-February shortly after the death of the senior Tanzanian politician paired with the more general deadly resurgence of the infection which had put pressure on the government to provide clearer guidelines for the pandemic. This revelation added to concerns of a hidden epidemic within Tanzania despite the country’s insistence of having had no local transmissions. Magufuli said the government had not forbidden the wearing of masks and were not discouraging people to do so if they wanted to. However, the conspiracy theories did not stop there as he was still sceptical of the masks Tanzanians should wear: “we have to be careful about which masks we wear” and encouraging people to either make their own masks or use masks that were produced locally.”
Impact on the Wider Region
Tanzania’s refusal to provide COVID-19 data to the WHO and the refusal to secure vaccines puts the whole continent in danger as many countries share porous borders. It is difficult to predict the future trajectory of the virus and refusal to cooperate endangers everyone. So, as long as there are cases of coronavirus in Tanzania, it will be extremely difficult for neighbouring countries to be free of the virus.
President Magufuli was clearly denying the pandemic even before it got to Tanzania. Coupled with the current news about numerous countries halting the rollout of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, this is going to fuel further scepticism in the country. Tanzanians in border communities may have to resort to crossing over to neighbouring Rwanda, Malawi or Kenya to access vaccination programmes – increasing the risk of the spread of the virus.
Furthermore, with the lack of disease surveillance within Tanzania there is the risk of new variants emerging within the country, which tend to emerge due to uncontrolled spread. A new variant emerging from Tanzania could easily endanger the whole region and invalidate vaccines that may not be effective against a new variant. Tanzania’s current approach will make it that much harder for normality to return to the region as long as COVID-19 is not controlled and or subjected to surveillance.
The new president of Tanzania, Samia Suluhu Hassan, was sworn in on 19 March and she is the first female head of state in the country. There has been general debate of whether Hassan will continue Magufuli’s legacy or change course.
Apart from dealing with Tanzania’s hidden epidemic, she will be faced with the task of healing the country that became so polarised under Magufuli’s rule. Speaking on the issue of polarity within the country as well as the uncertainty that developed after Magufuli’s disappearance, Hassan said: “This is a time to bury our differences, and be one as a nation…This is not a time for finger pointing, but it is a time to hold hands and move forward together.”
She is described as a ‘soft-spoken consensus builder’, which is a stark contrast from Magufuli who earned the label “Bulldozer” for pushing through policies despite opposition. Hassan speaks fondly of Magufuli, stating that, “He taught me a lot, he was my mentor and prepared me sufficiently.” She also assured the citizens of Tanzania that all is well and that nothing will change within the country, also stating that she will continue to lead the nation in the same way as Magufuli had done.
President Hassan has not yet mentioned her plans for dealing with the pandemic. However, her silence is understandable: the former president, after all, was a genuinely famous leader, despite his landslide election victory last autumn being marred by accusations of voter fraud. Disavowing his policies quickly might be politically risky for Hassan.
The case of Magufuli and Tanzania may serve as a cautionary tale to other COVID-19 sceptics. The pandemic he persistently refuted outlived him and turned his presidency into a harsh example for the region and the continent. In his six years as president, the country became increasingly polarised through his treatment of the opposition, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the country also became increasingly isolated internationally.
Hassan’s international exposure could provide her with the kind of worldview needed to re-establish Tanzania’s diplomatic status. She talked about the importance of burying differences and showing unity as a country in her inaugural address on 19th March. Her forthrightness and rationality may be critical in pushing the country forward. She would need to act quickly to shift the country’s stance on COVID-19 and reach out to the opposition and other stakeholders in order to foster a national dialogue that is more inclusive.