Crimson Skies

By Prerana Srinivasan

‘The world doesn’t need a whole lot of massively thick-skinned politicians; they do need people who care’ – New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern.

Jacinda Ardern, the third female prime minister of New Zealand, a small country off of the coast of the Australian continent with a population of four million and eighty thousand residents set an example to the world. Her agility, endurance and ability to stay calm even under the pressure of terrorist attacks, earthquakes and an unruly pandemic truly does speak more than the words used to lay praise upon her. 

Elected in 2017, after Prime Minister Bill English, Jacinda has proven her worth after tackling such matters of severity with sheer competence unlike her counterparts and predecessors. Even as leader of the opposition in the Labour Party, she quickly rose through the ranks, and was popular amongst the people. She still holds this lasso on ever growing popularity as the next election approaches. This is another feat that many politicians of this day and age have thrown away carelessly.

Though New Zealand’s declaration of being free of the virus lasted for only two weeks before two travellers from the United Kingdom tested positive for the virus, their strategy of going hard and going early with the lockdown has set a precedent for what it is to properly control a virus.  

An example would be that of  Jair Bolsonaro, the Brazilian head of state, who openly condoned the lockdown and wished for the public to dismiss the zoonotic disease as a slight flu, even threatening to fire the Brazilian health minister over the decision of enforcing a lockdown.

That is where the question emerges, why exactly was New Zealand successful with its narrowing of the virus and ensuring that its spread wasn’t as vicious as it was in other nations? 

One attributing factor would, in fact, be the country’s relatively small population and amongst the others stands the primary factor of the government’s actions.

As per the previously mentioned phrase of “going hard and going early”, New Zealand entered a level 3 lockdown on the 23rd of March, as non-essential businesses were closed, domestic air travel was banned though discretionary, and all events and gatherings were cancelled.

It then progressed into a level 4 lockdown, which was a stricter way of tackling the virus, which was also referred to as the “eliminate” policy after forty-eight hours. Under this policy, people were told to only maintain contact with those people whom they lived with.

Even earlier, on the 19^th of March, New Zealand closed its borders, banning all inbound travel to the country except returning New Zealanders and some essential health workers.

It is this approach of tackling the illness as early as possible, that has had outstanding results which builds to such a great rapport of the New Zealand Prime Minister.

That is why there is a need for others like Jacinda Ardern . 

However, notable examples of others who fall under this minority would be Nicola Sturgeon, Angela Merkel, Mette Frederiksen, Sanna Marin, Erna Solberg, and Tsai Ing-Wen.

For instance, in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon the First Minister, published a plan for the times which lie ahead alongside the problems, which has been extremely popular in the nation, the document having been downloaded by approximately a quarter of a million people. 

The document was based on the four critical aspects of “kindness, compassion, openness and transparency”, she stated that she wanted to “treat people like grown-ups” and be “frank with you every step of the way”. 

That is where these women have warped the standard approach of a blurred response from the government into transparency which has gained the trust of those in their country unlike nations such as China, which actively mislead their population to strengthen their hypnosis atop of them.

If one is looking for examples of leaders being productive during the pandemic, they needn’t look further. From Europe to New Zealand, female leaders are teaching a class in what it is to manage a crisis such as this one. 

Countries such as Scotland, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Taiwan are also worthy inclusions on the list of countries with effective national responses.

Though people may dismiss a few of these nations as small or of a low population, the inclusion of nations such as Germany and the nations of Scandinavia on this list speak for miles against the sheer banality of the claims.

By Prerana Srinivasan

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” – Adolf Hitler

As such is the premise for influencing citizens during times of dysfunction. Such lies have been seen throughout history as they were put forth to divide society into miniscule bits. Even though the Modern Era has brought upon advancements it is not necessary that they could save a nation whilst under a blanket of authoritarian rule, with agendas for censorship and suppression, even the greatest of individuals may fall prey, with the others being swept away in a tornado of falsehoods.

Dictators are often regarded as individuals who have come to power in a nation-state in a way that is not democratic in nature, i.e by seizing power, they rule with an iron fist and are autocratic in nature.

However, the most notable part of their rule is that of how they maintain a stronghold despite the opposition of the international community and their very own citizens rather than the way they rose to power.

Most of the times when a dictator rises to power it is due to a vacuum of political nature in the region or the breakdown of constitutional machinery, in such times they often are viewed as the messiah that will bring an end to misfortune, however, history says the exact opposite whether it’s the effects of long term rule or short term rule.

Two very famous examples of this would be Napoleon’s rise to power, which came after the disastrous functioning of the directory in post-revolution France, and Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in post World War One Germany.

Napoleon rose to power quickly, as a result of the fact that he was a victorious general, who brought several victories, leading to his high status. The Brumaire coup was the immediate event that marked the rise of Napoleon to power. Napoleon conspired with different directors who helped him organize a coup, which overthrew the Directory government. This created a political vacuum through which Napoleon rose to power.

Dictators use an array of techniques to “sway the Populus” so that their agendas can be pushed forward whether it is beneficial to the nation or not. However, this “swaying” often comes with copious amounts of suppression as well as propaganda.

They generally play on the perceived weaknesses of the presidency to draw in support and criticize governments for actions like disbursal an excessive amount of cash, inflicting economic troubles, increasing taxes and different national policies that impact voters. Dictators then define plans for enhancements, that are enforced once they gain power.

The Nazis effectively used the information to win the support of legions of Germans, later in an exceedingly despotic way, to facilitate ill-usage, war, and ultimately put to death. The stereotypes and pictures found in Nazi information weren’t new, however, as it was already acquainted with their audience.

Propaganda is that the art of persuading people to have a specific view about certain information which is usually biased. It’s employed by political leaders or organizations to deliberately mislead a population into believing a set of facts or beliefs to be true. Propaganda is employed by most countries in times of war to encourage hatred towards the enemy and to push nationalism into the population.

Hitler believed powerfully in the power of propaganda that he created a post in his new government for a Minister of Propaganda and National Enlightenment. Joseph Goebbels was the person appointed to the post.

Propaganda was one of the various ways in which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics tried to regulate its voters. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics censorship body, Glavlit, was utilized not solely to eliminate any undesirable written materials, however additionally to make sure that the right philosophical spin was placed on each revealed item.

Dictators use quite a bit of psychological sway to draw in the eye of voters. they provide messages of hope and strength throughout difficulty and emerge assured and hopeful. Some government systems, primarily those with unequal branches of power, make it easier for dictators to emerge.

In distinction, governments like the United States, features a system of checks and balances, which never lets one branch dominate the other.

From Lenin to Goebbels, every regime used propaganda as a means of staying in power, defiling all mediums from paper to the silver screen. Such influence pays a major role in portraying the actions of a nation to the world.

Furthermore, the demise of such regimes is due to the elimination of the premise upon which the Populus was influenced.

Greta Thunberg, a media sensation, the youth change-maker leading the protest against climate change, is a Swedish born activist who has received international recognition for her school strike for climate change movement.
However, the purpose of this article is not to enlighten or bestow her achievements upon you, for then the purpose of this document would be rendered void. The matter of deliberation is that of Thunberg’s credibility and if she has actually made an impact on society apart from her wide presence on social media platforms.
Thunberg’s motivation for her movement is actually one that most of us could fall behind and support, however, when one starts to dig deep into the intricacies of her solution for climate change you cannot help but admit, that it’s flawed.
Her solution is simply not viable for third world nations and when the said solution is closely examined one could even claim that it can be rendered into first world propaganda to stop third world nations from developing.
The president of the Russian Federation, Mr. Vladimir Putin, dismissed Greta Thunberg’s recent speech at the United Nations, where she denounced world leaders for failing to combat climate change.
“I may disappoint you, but I don’t share the common excitement about the speech by Greta Thunberg,” Putin said at a forum in Moscow
“No one has explained to Greta that the modern world is complex and different,” Putin continued. “People in Africa or in many Asian countries want to live at the same wealth level as in Sweden.”
Putin later said children who are passionate about environmental issues, like Thunberg, should be supported.
When we ponder upon such remarks, we can’t help but agree that backing the plan of a sixteen-year-old climate change activist who is not even equipped with the knowledge required to form a viable model for solving the solution at hand, is ridiculous.
Let us discuss another incident that can add to the many reasons why Ms. Thunberg’s actions are quite questionable.
Russia has a way to reuse nuclear fuel; electricity over there is plentiful and cheap now and will continue to be so thanks to the “Dual-Component System’s” perfected use of uranium. The upcoming “energy crisis” may have already been averted as cheap and seemingly endless power can be sought out over there, and if recycling can guarantee them the ability to reuse materials cheaply and effectively (which is already happening even in Russia, with German cooperation) then humanity has a bright comfortable future ahead.
You would assume that climate change activists like Greta Thunberg would be absolutely thrilled by this news and yet there is a deafening silence because they want to impose their unviable solutions on the Earth, whether or whether not, it leads to the decimation of the planet, just to prove a point. Like all humans, she also has an agenda, one that is ruled over by her sheer foolishness, incompetence, and disregard for attention to detail.
In the month of August, she set sail for the United Nations. Greta Thunberg’s yacht, the Malizia II, delivered her to the UN climate conference in New York, two weeks after she first set sail from Europe. The transatlantic trip was a masterstroke in PR, with every major media outlet broadcasting updates on the journey and detailing the hardships Thunberg has endured – no toilet, no shower, and seasickness.
The accusations of hypocrisy rolled in thick and fast for good reason too, criticizing everything from the plastic water bottles used by the crew to the long-haul flights taken by the sailors responsible for returning the yacht to Europe, which is in fact justified.
When asked about her agenda at a press conference, it was “shocking” that she was unable to provide the press with an adequate answer due to the fact that she had no printed documents in her vicinity, evidently, isn’t it a gamble to support one who isn’t aware of what they’re supporting themselves?
This is with regard to the fact that Ms. Thunberg, has been an internationally recognized climate change activist for the past two years and couldn’t defend herself without a sheet of parchment.
To conclude, it is imperative that one sees through the flaws of her policies before supporting her for her radical stance, the intricacies truly bring forth her lack of comprehension of the situation at hand.