The Covid-19 pandemic sparked unprecedented political responses dramatically affecting societies, markets, and the lives of individuals. Under great uncertainty and turbulent conditions, governments adopted far-reaching political interventions to curb the pandemic. These interventions might therefore be expected to challenge key ideas underpinning liberal democracy. We analyze and compare how the political interventions seeking to curb the spread of the coronavirus in Denmark and Sweden challenged and possibly adapted three key ideas underpinning liberal democracy, namely, constitutionality, parliamentarism, and public responsiveness. When ideas are adapted in ways that advance their ability to stay relevant when faced with turbulence, we understand them as robust. Our study found both similarities and differences between the two countries. The idea of constitutionality was challenged in Denmark but remained robust in Sweden. The idea of parliamentarism appeared robust in both countries, whereas the idea of public responsiveness was adapted in neither country but challenged further in Sweden than in Denmark. Paradoxically, Denmark saw fewer adaptations to the liberal democratic ideas than Sweden yet appeared better prepared to protect lives during turbulent times. Our study suggests that liberal democracies must very carefully balance trade-offs between individual liberties and the protection of public health to preserve the core public ideas of constitutionality, parliamentarism, and public responsiveness.

中文翻译：

---

大流行后自由民主的意识形态稳健性：丹麦和瑞典案例的比较


Covid-19 大流行引发了前所未有的政治反应，极大地影响了社会、市场和个人生活。在巨大的不确定性和动荡的条件下，各国政府采取了影响深远的政治干预措施来遏制疫情。因此，这些干预可能会挑战支撑自由民主的关键思想。我们分析和比较了旨在遏制冠状病毒在丹麦和瑞典传播的政治干预如何挑战并可能改编支撑自由民主的三个关键思想，即宪政、议会制和公众响应性。当想法被改编，以提高它们在面对动荡时保持相关性的能力时，我们认为它们是稳健的。我们的研究发现了这两个国家之间的相似之处和不同之处。合宪性的想法在丹麦受到挑战，但在瑞典仍然很强大。议会制的理念在这两个国家都显得很强大，而公众响应的理念在这两个国家都没有得到适应，但在瑞典比在丹麦受到的挑战更大。矛盾的是，丹麦对自由民主思想的适应程度比瑞典少，但在动荡时期似乎为保护生命做好了更充分的准备。我们的研究表明，自由民主国家必须非常谨慎地平衡个人自由和保护公共卫生之间的权衡，以维护宪政、议会制和公众响应等核心公共理念。