In May, I wrote in these pages about the response in the UK to Prime Minister Boris Johnson falling seriously ill with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). His approval rating soared from 46 percent of people who said he was doing a good job in March, to 66 percent when he was in hospital in April. His ratings have since cratered. In the latest poll, only 44 percent said that Johnson, and by extension his Conservative government, is doing well, while 50 percent said he is doing badly. By most measures of performance, the UK is not doing well. According to international league tables, the country ranks second in the world in terms of per capita coronavirus deaths, after Belgium (though some people argue it is impossible to compare relative performance due to differences in assessment by each country). The government has made a number of U-turns during the crisis: No lockdown, then a national lockdown; no masks, then compulsory masks; Parliament meeting by video link, then Parliament meeting in person. However, the latest reversal has particularly punctured public confidence in the government’s ability to lead. With the schools shut at the end of the last school year and exams not possible, a new way had to be found to grade pupils and award exam results — results that will set pupils on their paths to further education and future careers. An algorithm was adopted that took the grades that teachers predicted their pupils would achieve and then standardized them across the country. However, this algorithm was designed in such a way that pupils from schools in poorer areas had their results downgraded to a greater extent than those in wealthier areas. For a government that won an election in part by capturing seats in less-affluent parts of the country, the fallout was highly damaging. The government was forced to abandon the algorithm altogether and award exam results solely based on teachers’ predicted grades. The fiasco touched the lives of people up and down the country — almost everyone had a friend or relative who was affected. The challenge of the coronavirus crisis is its novelty. Governments can prepare for plagues and pandemics but they cannot know in advance their exact nature: They cannot know how they will be spread, for example, and when the disease is new even scientists will initially disagree about the best approach. However much governments shelter behind the claim that they are “following the scientific advice,” this advice varies from country to country because much is based on supposition. The response in the US, for example, has been rather different to that in the UK, but operating equally in the dark. Sweden, which followed the “no lockdown” policy initially adopted by the UK, has moved in media opinion between being a beacon of enlightenment and an example of the limitations of freedom. We still do not know which perception is more accurate. Ultimately, though, the fortunes of governments in terms of public opinion are forged primarily through the public capacity to absorb difficult times. Human societies require scapegoats when things go wrong. For those wishing to enter politics that is the cost, albeit one many leaders are unwilling to pay. Political leaders do not get to claim that life is unfair, that they had no control over the disaster that hit while they were in office: When they signed up they agreed to take the blame, just as they happily accept the credit when good things happen outside of their control. This is only fair, because the average voter has very little control over most matters that affect their lives. Jobs come and go with the rise and fall of the economy, for example. For most people, the education of their children depends on decisions made far from their realm of control. Even decisions about their health are made by others. With this degree of responsibility over people’s lives, politicians bear the consequences of failure. This phenomenon is most commonly seen in the economy. Political leaders routinely claim credit for booming economies that are the result of their predecessors’ efforts. They can also get voted out of office when the economy turns sour, also often as a result of the actions of their predecessors. But the same applies to war (when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982, the entire ministerial team at the UK’s Foreign Office resigned) and, of course, to pandemics. Initially, in a crisis like a pandemic, people rally behind their leaders — at least, in most cases. This did not happen in the US, in large part because the pandemic was framed in partisan terms from the very beginning. But as time goes on, the more that the inadequacies of a government become apparent, whether the result of incompetence or simply incomplete information, the more the dissatisfaction with that government’s performance will grow. Any government not currently in an election year should be very glad. When the pandemic is over and normal service resumes, a government’s performance closer to the election will have the greatest bearing on the results. Peter Welby Any government not currently in an election year should be very glad. When the pandemic is over and normal service resumes, a government’s performance closer to the election will have the greatest bearing on the results. But for governments facing an election this year, as is the case in the US, those in power are right to be afraid of the electorate. This is the first global crisis in the age of the mass use of social media. Evidence of the failures of government, real or not, spread around the world before government communications teams can swing into action. We saw this in the footage of mass graves in New York City, in the evidence of the total collapse of the health system in some parts of Italy, and in the anger over the shortages of personal protective equipment in hospitals in the UK and elsewhere. Much of the time, there is nothing a government can do other than hold tight and try to ride out the storm. Every action they take will be scrutinized with the benefit of hindsight — but that should not paralyze them and prevent them from taking any action at all. Much as they might be shouldering the blame for failures today, those with years to go before another election campaign will have the opportunity to claim credit for the recovery, too. Peter Welby is a consultant on religion and global affairs, specializing in the Arab world. Twitter: @pdcwelby Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view