One of the areas related to civics and citizenship education and active citizenship that I am finding particularly interesting is the way that various groups and individuals are reacting to the release of the COVIDSAFE app by the federal government. This app will be used to trace the contacts that people who have tested positive have had during the infectious period.
There are lots of arguments happening about the safety of the app, and whether the app collects people’s data, and if it does, whether the government can be trusted with that data, and also about the efficacy of the app: there have been reports that apparently it only works if the app is left on, and that doesn’t work on Apple devices, and supposedly there are also issues with deleting the app, as well as teh fact that the governments haven’t worked out a way to legislate to access the information that the app gathers.
I’m interested in all of those things, but I am even more interested about the discourses of active citizenship that seem to be arising related to the app, and the other parties that have taken it upon themselves to contribute to the civic discussion. It’s also interesting to note how this discussion has split traditional party divides:both Labor and the Liberals are keen to support people downloading the app. Generally, the arguments the government are marking are a mix of promises and threats. If we don’t all download the app, we’re being irresponsible. It’s almost like we’re children; I think that fits in with Morrison’s rather crude efforts to rebrand himself as the father of Australia, in this time of crisis. On the other hand, there are promises of ‘if we download the app, we’ll all get to go to the footy again soon.’ Again, this is linked to the notion of Morrison as a ‘daggy dad’ – that is, the suburban dad of two who loves his baseball caps and his footy. I’m not convinced that this is any more convincing than the ‘father of our nation’ schtick.
Of course, other countries, most notably China, have already gone down this path. There are elements of the quantified citizen in China, where people receive a citizenship score (as I understand it – I’m no expert on this aspect of citizenship) based on the kinds of actions they undertake. I find this intriguing because, much like the COVIDSAFE app, it presupposes a specific definition of what is good citizenship – in this case, following the directions of the government. THe government would argue – and perhaps they are correct – that they are acting in the public’s best interest, and hence it’s not an outcome motivated solely by the desire for success at the ballot box.
But the challenge, of course, is that there are forms of citizenship that I would consider to be ‘good’ that are not in keeping with following the government’s direction. For example, civil disobedience has a long history – and is generally associated with some progressive campaigns for equity and justice. In this case, failing to download the COVIDSAFE app might very well be a minor form of civil disobedience. But – if that’s the case – what about those people in the US, for example, that are engaging in a civil disobedience campaign and refusing to shelter at home? Are they, replete with guns and camo, actually active citizens? It’s an uncomfortable thought.