The Observer XVII.III - A Leader's Legacy

Letter from the Editor Dear readers, Welcome to the third issue of Volume XVII. The theme of this issue is “A Leader’s Legacy” and it offered a chance for the team to study past and present leaders and determine the impact of their actions on the world. The theme was inspired by the ideas of political scientist Kenneth Waltz in his discourse on world affairs. I would like to take the opportunity to once again praise the Observer team for their hard work in contributing to this issue, especially as we enter the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic that has caught the world’s attention. Additionally, I would like to thank Art Vijayaratnam for her diligent work in designing the issue seen in the following pages.

In this issue, you will find a distinct variety of leaders covered. Alexandra and Megan analyze the authoritarian paths taken by Russian and Brazilian presidents Vladmir Putin and Jair Bolsonaro, Vanessa writes on Jacinda Ardern’s COVID-19 leadership and Rachel warns about the dangers of romanticizing the Bush presidency. Sydney and Hazuk both consider female leadership in the United Kingdom by analyzing Margaret Thatcher’s term as prime minister and the Queen’s evolving role as Britain’s symbolic head of state. We return to Canada with Noor and Camilo’s analyses of Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney. Outside of politics, Cassandra and Vanja look at the leadership displayed by those in the field of cancer research and Elon Musk.

Finally, I review the legacy of former American president Ronald Reagan and his impact on modern conservatism. Happy readings!

Sincerely,

Surajreet Singh

THE OBSERVER

XVII.III

Print Editor-in-Chief Political Studies ‘22

i.

Table of Contents

04

Angela Merkel and Germany: a turbulent love story

06

Ronald Reagan, Conservative visionary

08

• Caroline Kim, Staff Writer

• Surajreet Singh, Editor-in-Chief

Delusion and Impotence: Jair Bolsonaro’s Rising Authoritarianism in the Wake of COVID-19 • Megan Sieroka, Assistant Editor

10

Forever (more than just a) First Lady

12

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Great Beginnings

14

Queen Elizabeth II: An Extraordinary Life of Purpose

16

Elon Musk: A Hero in the Realm of Environmentalism

18

• Kenzie O’Day, Editor (External Submission)

• Noor Yassein, Assistant Editor

• Hazuk Asghar, Staff Writer

• Vanja Bodja, Staff Writer

Jacinda Ardern: Approaching New Zealand, the World, and the Future with Empathy • Vanessa Ellia, Staff Writer

20 22

Past, Present, and Future Leaders of Cancer Research • Cassandra van Drunen, Staff Writer

The Dangers of Nostalgia: Why We Should Not Romanticize the Bush Era • Rachel Riddell, Staff Writer

24

The Incredible Leaders of the COVID-19 Pandemic

26

The Iron Lady’s Legacy: The Unwilling Icon

28

Brian Mulroney: The Personification of Leadership

30

Putin Must Abandon the Sinking Ship of Authoritarianism

• Cassandra van Drunen, Staff Writer

• Claire Parsons, Staff Writer • Camilo Sebastian, External Submission

• Alexandra Paul, Staff Writer

THE OBSERVER

XVII.III

ii.

Angela Merkel and Germany: A Turbulent Love Story

PH OTO B Y S E A N G A LLUP /G E T TY I MAGE S

By : Ca ro l i n e Kim

Angela Merkel is almost a household name. You might know her as the first female German Chancellor or the third longestserving German Chancellor to date. She has an impressive resume; in her 15 years of leadership, she has led Germany through the 2008 financial crash, the European debt crisis, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the migration crisis, and the international consequences from Brexit, as well as Donald Trump’s election.

In fact, Andrea Rommele, the dean of the Berlin-based Hertie School asked, “With both Merkel and Trump leaving office this year, the big question is: Whose legacy will win?

However, there has been some turbulence over her popularity in the past five years. When Merkel was pounded with doubts and criticisms over Germany’s ability to THE OBSERVER

accept nearly 1 million migrants in 2015, she responded with a simple “we’ll manage this”.

However, many German citizens remained unconvinced. The string of seven terrorismrelated events in 2016, culminating in the Berlin Christmas Market Attack, did not help erase the sentiment of fear evoked by the spectre of jihadist-terrorism worldwide. The threat of terrorism was forcibly shoved down the throats of German citizens by right-wing opposition party AfD, who contorted Merkel’s words and presented them to citizens as “you manage this,” propagating fear that Merkel was leaving her own citizens to fend for themselves amidst public disorder and security threat.

This reinforcement of fear worked, and by 2017, Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union had to form a coalition with the Social Democrats, making the AfD the largest opposition party. The increase in fear was met by a drop in her public ratings, but Merkel was continuously praised by the West for her decision to open her borders whilst the rest of the European Union closed them.

In hindsight, she was merely not closing her borders and following the philosophy of the European Union; free travel. So, although she was painted as a pillar for democracy abroad and deserved praise for standing her ground despite ongoing pressures, Merkel was not a freedom fighter in any sense.

She later did succumb to pressures from other European countries by taking a conservative approach to immigration and enforcing tighter border restrictions. In order to halt irregular migration, an agreement between Turkey and the EU was made to enforce a resettlement scheme, which drastically slowed the flow of migrants to EUrope in 2016. Merkel’s government even tried to limit asylum applications from north Africa by adding Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia to its list of countries considered safe. However, this proposal was later rejected by Germany’s parliament.

She also played with the risk of losing her popularity among German citizens with her ambitious approach to COVID-19. With her scientific background, she was able to recognize the severity of COVID-19 earlier PAGE 4

than other world leaders and decided to act accordingly. She imposed lockdowns and seemingly strict restrictions, before the rest of Europe had time to assess the situation properly. She had to convince her citizens that she was making the right decision. Although diligent, reliable, and level-headed, she seems distant from her people and had to ensure that her words struck citizens with the right frequency. With the right setting and tone, she was able to convince her citizens through an unusual televised speech that she was weathering the country towards needed

safety. And Germany did succeed in the early stages of the pandemic, keeping its infection numbers low and restrictions fairly loose. Her ambition and ability to weather crises shone through and protected Germany from losing control to this pandemic.

As Angela Merkel prepares to leave the German office this year, I wonder what will happen to the country that has followed her suit for 15 years. Will her legacy be honoured by the country that has flourished under her leadership, or will it succumb to leadership unable to continue her ambition?

P HOTO BY ANGE LO ABE AR O N U N S P LASH

XVII.III

Ronald Reagan: Conservative Visionary By : Su ra j reet S ingh

P H OTO BY P H 1 S AMMY P I E R C E / W I K I ME DIA CO M M O N S

“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”

The race was between a former actor turned Republican icon against an unpopular Democratic nominee during a time of economic struggle, major foreign policy challenges in the Middle East and Asia and domestic strife at home. What comes to mind would be the 2016 contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but instead, the year is 1980. Ronald Reagan, the popular Republican governor and staunch conservative, is facing off against Democrat President Jimmy Carter. Gallup polling in the week prior to the election had Reagan trailing Carter by 9 points, a seemingly insurmountable lead. However, on Election Day, the results were stunning. Reagan and the Republicans swept into power, carrying 44 states and 43 million votes against Carter’s 35 million, a dominating performance against the incumbent and the beginning of modern American conservatism. But how long before his name is torn down from buildings and his legacy expunged? Will history consider him a visionary or a villain?

His entry in politics occurred when he was still an actor, testifying before Congress about the presence of communist sympathizers in the film industry and serving as an FBI informant in the mid 1940s. While initially a Democrat and supportive of left-wing causes, THE OBSERVER

he began a shift to the right in the 50s onward, supporting Republicans Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon in their presidential runs.

When hired by General Electric in 1954 to host a weekly drama series, Reagan began speaking on issues that would form the foundation of modern American conservatism: support for the free market, limited government, lower taxes and the defense of values. He soon quit and registered as a Republican.

After a strong speech in support of Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention, Reagan’s political career had launched. He was tapped to be the Republican candidate for the governorship in California and won the race in the 1966 election. Reagan’s time as a governor was a preview of things to come, as he championed pro-life policies, lower taxes, limited government, gun rights and other issues. During this time, he stood as a bulwark against the infamous Berkeley campus protests that resulted in the death of a student, sending in the national guard to quell the protests.

Instead of apologizing, he doubled down and laid the blame at the hands of university administrators and those who “let young people think they had the right to choose the laws they would obey, as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest.” This PAGE 6

won him support among the more right-wing members of the Republican Party and set him up for his presidential runs.

Reagan fell just short of becoming the Republican nominee in the 1976 election.

This did not deter him, running again in 1980 on the same platform but with newer political circumstances. He came into office after the economic devastation wrought by the oil crises in the 1970s and at a critical moment internationally, as the Iranian Revolution and the new regime became prosecuting Americans while the Soviet problem remained.

Domestically, Reagan’s solution could be summed up by one phrase: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” He believed if taxes were lowered and government spending were reduced, economic growth would occur through more investment and lead to higher employment and wages. This new policy position, known as “Reaganomics” became a critical feature of the new Republican Party and led to one of the largest peacetime economic expansions in American history. During Reagan’s administration, the unemployment rate declined 7.5 percent to 5.4 percent amid a recession in 1982-83 and GDP growth averaged over 3 percent with a high of 8.6 percent in 1983.

On foreign policy, the United States adopted what would become known as the Reagan Doctrine, aggressively combatting communist movements around the world through covert/overt aid to anti-communist factions in Asia, Africa and Latin America, often supporting regime change. For Reagan, the Soviet Union’s downfall was of utmost importance. On this, he was vindicated.

Fostering a strong relationship with Soviet leader Mikael Gorbachev and calling upon him to “tear down this wall” in West Berlin in 1987, Reagan’s approach set the stage for the USSR’s collapse in 1989 and cemented his legacy as one of America’s greatest presidents.

The strength of Reagan’s success in his 1984 re-election, winning 49 states against Democratic nominee Walter Mondale despite worries about his age, forced a period of soul searching for the opposing Democratic Party.

His free market policies through deregulation and lowering the impact of government was a critical part of his immense popularity, forcing the Democrats to abandon their prior commitments to labour and embrace

neoliberalism under Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

His nickname, the Teflon President, speaks to his political might. No matter what his opponents tried, nothing could take him down.

For all his success, it is critical not to cover his faults. Economically, the country was becoming a powerhouse, but Reagan’s promises of balanced budgets never occurred.

His White House continually sent budgets to Congress that helped to grow the deficit and by the time Reagan left office in 1989, the federal debt had gone from $738 billion to $2.1 trillion. The increase in wealth for American families had been focused primarily in the upper sector of income earners and, critics argue, predominantly among white families.

Additionally, the 1981 tax cuts instituted by Reagan were gradually reversed with tax increases in the years after to slowly make up for the increasing deficits.

Where Reagan is credited with taking down the Soviet Union, the Reagan Doctrine had pushed the United States into the support of movements or regimes that were the antithesis of American values, such as the UNITA movement in Angola or the mujahideen in Afghanistan that were involved in considerable human rights abuses. Additionally, his administration struggled to deal with the fallout from the Iran-Contra affair, a mechanism through which the US had sold arms to the Iranians to fund the Nicaraguan contra rebels, which had been outlawed by Congress. Many top officials resigned while the Teflon President survived relatively unscathed.

However, such faults should not take away from the strength of Reagan’s legacy.

As we enter the third decade since Reagan’s years as president, he has cast a long shadow as successive politicians often invoke his ideas and policies in their own runs for the White House. Republicans and Democrats alike have struggled to break free from Reagan’s economic platform and often ran on them with great success. It was only until the Obama and Trump years that the limited government approach favoured by Reagan was challenged, first through Obama’s health reform and Trump’s trade policy. Despite that, Reagan can be credited for allowing for the voices of conservatives to be more mainstream in the political sphere. His impact on modern conservatism has remained strong and deservedly so.

XVII.III

Delusion and Impotence: Jair Bolsonaro’s Rising Authoritarianism in the Wake of COVID-19 By : Mega n Si ero ka

Since the beginning of COVID-19 in Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, the current President, was quick to dismiss scientific evidence and strengthen his authoritarian rule. As of January 20 th , 2021, Brazil has 8.4 million cases and 209,847 deaths due to COVID-19.

According to the Global Health Index, Brazil is ranked 22 out of 195 countries in overall preparedness for disease outbreaks.

Despite Brazil’s preparedness, the country currently has the highest number of cases across South America, and the third-highest number of cases globally.

A primary reason for this division between preparedness and response can be attributed to the rise in authoritarianism as a result of COVID-19. Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro has taken advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic and extended his authoritarian rule. Large outbreaks with low response have led to widespread criticism that President Bolsonaro is the greatest threat to Brazil. COVID-19 has exacerbated Brazil’s rising authoritarianism through an analysis of Bolsonaro’s suppression of opposition voices, undercutting of public health measures, and preexisting authoritarian tendencies prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

THE OBSERVER

Bolsonaro is controlling information on the COVID-19 outbreak in Brazil through the dismissal of adversaries. For example, following an interview on April 16 th , 2020, Luiz Henrique Mandetta, Brazil’s Health Minister, was fired by Bolsonaro because of his criticism of the government’s response to the emerging health crisis. Mandetta was replaced with Health Minister Nelson Teich, who resigned one month after his appointment to the position due to public health policy disagreements between him and Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro’s response was to hire Army General Eduardo Pazuello, who has no medical or health experience.

Bolsonaro’s suppression of opposition opinions and forces has accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic and has undoubtedly caused the increasingly worrying COVID-19 statistics. Bolsonaro has used the pandemic as a cover to extend his powers and eliminate dissent.

In conjunction with Bolsonaro’s suppression of adversarial opinions, the President has continuously disseminated misinformation through social media and mainstream media.

In March, 2020, following the first reports of the virus, Bolsonaro dismissed the virus as being a fantasy created by the media. Moreover, Bolsonaro spoke in an interview in early May wherein he likened COVID-19 to the flu or a common cold. As of June, the government ceased reporting on COVID-19 statistics and death counts. Bolsonaro stated that the COVID-19 figures were inaccurate because they were overrepresenting the total cases.

Bolsonaro’s dismissal of the severity of the virus aligns with his belief that a lockdown will cause an economic crisis. Bolsonaro has placed the importance of politics and the economy over the health and livelihoods of his citizens.

COVID-19 has exacerbated the growing authoritarianism in Brazil that has predated the pandemic. Following Bolsonaro’s election in 2018, his leadership style emphasized traditional family values PAGE 8

and the importance of economic growth.

Bolsonaro’s prioritization of the economy led to reduced expenditure on public health and social services. He has continuously lowered spending on social services and grown his top-down authoritarian approach. Bolsonaro’s tragic leadership has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities and weakened the ability of the country to respond effectively to crises.

Bolsonaro's popularity continues to crumble across Brazil. Since October, Bolsonaro’s government popularity slumped to 32.9 percent from an existing 41.2 percent. Moreover, the poll showed a rise in disapproval ratings from Bolsonaro’s performance as president — with disapproval ratings at 51.4 percent.

This trend is predicted to continue in the coming months as Brazilians continue to lose faith in their leadership.

Brazil has been ravaged by Bolsonaro’s increasing authoritarianism reflected in his dismissal of adversaries, denial of the virus’s severity, and absence of public health expenditure. Bolsonaro rose to power in widespread corruption and has since enhanced the institutional fragility of the state. In response to Bolsonaro’s negligible authoritarian response to the virus, favelas across Brazil have developed community leadership to fend for themselves. COVID-19 has weakened political accountability in countries across the globe. Brazil is not alone in its rising authoritarianism in response to COVID-19 but rather represents a wider trend globally.

In the months to come, Brazil, like many other countries around the world, will struggle to cope with deficient authoritarian leaders.

P HOTO BY MAR Í L I A CAST E L L I O N U N SP LAS H

XVII.III

Forever (more than just a) First Lady By: Ken zi e O ’Da y

P HOTO BY DF ID/F LICKR

“I am from the south side of Chicago. That tells you as much about me as you need to know.”

Michelle Obama came from working class roots. The former first lady earned two Ivy League degrees through hard work; a value instilled in her by her working-class family. Her legacy as First Lady comes from the fact that she was so open about her roots, something that everyone can share. Everyone came from somewhere, and by valuing her story, she made it acceptable for those around her to value theirs.

As the wife of a former President, Michelle Obama is often associated with politics. A fair assumption, considering she worked with her husband during his campaign for the 2008 Presidential election, and has supported the political campaigns of Democrats such THE OBSERVER

as Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden.

However, Michelle Obama is not a politician, and is known for saying she “doesn’t like politics.” Thus, her legacy is not a political one. But she made a tremendous impact on the lives of many with her campaigns during her husband’s Presidential terms: influencing the nation via her Let’s Move campaign, Reach Higher, Let Girls Learn, and Join Forces. The United States benefited greatly from the work she put into these initiatives, but the international community also benefited, and continues to benefit, from exposure to her character. She faced criticism with poise, stating in a commencement speech at Tuskegee University that when attacked with racist PAGE 10

remarks while campaigning for her husband, she had to learn to be true to her values, and trust that things would work themselves out.

When faced with criticism, or microaggressions that are day-to-day experiences for so many people of colour, Obama preaches her husband’s iconic “when they go low, I go high” mantra. She advises a calm, measured reaction in response to prejudice, and advises students to focus on their education. The generation of young men and women who grew up with Michelle Obama as First Lady, have normalized the fact that a black man can be President and a black woman First Lady, in the face of racism and character attacks. Obama’s legacy encompasses that as well.

As First Lady, Michelle Obama’s chief focus was on children. She’s never been shy in stating that her job, first and foremost, is to be a mother to her two daughters, exemplified by the moniker “mom-in-chief” which she bestowed upon herself at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. She expanded on that idea with her 2010 Let’s Move campaign, which focused on ending childhood obesity within the next generation. To tackle this, Obama’s campaign emphasized the importance of exercise and made one of the largest reforms to school lunch programs in over 15 years: the quality of food served improved and she brought 5,946 salad bars to schools across America through the Salad Bars to School initiative. Salad Bars to Schools still runs today, and thus Michelle Obama’s legacy as a champion of nutritious eating continues.

With her 2014 Reach Higher campaign, the former FLOTUS shifted focus to children graduating high school, encouraging them to continue their education at a post-secondary institution. Reach Higher aimed to support guidance counselors across America and provide students with greater understanding of college opportunities and financial aid.

She has stated several times that she deeply values education, and in that vein launched the Let Girls Learn initiative in 2015. Let Girls Learn is an organization dedicated to advancing girls education internationally, particularly in underdeveloped countries. In partnership with several international governments and

with coordinated effort of six American government agencies, Let Girls Learn strives not only to create opportunities for girls to go to school, but to change mindsets on girl education and value on local levels. The organization works on preventing genderbased violence, building dormitories so that young women can remain in secondary school and improving school bathrooms At the time of launch, $1 billion USD had been dedicated to the project by the Obama Administration, and another $100 million was requested in the President’s 2017 budget.

Her commitment to the values of health, education, respect, and personal story, continue to inspire. In 2017, a group of authors came together to publish The Meaning of Michelle: 16 Writers on the Iconic First Lady and How Her Journey Inspires Our Own. This alone solidifies her legacy as an inspiration.

Upon her departure from the White House in 2016, young girls who had grown up seeing her as First Lady said she “stands for kindness,” “makes me feel beautiful,” “[she] tries to make young girls feel like more than just girls… like people who actually have opinions that matter and who can fight for what we believe in.” Her legacy extends not only to women in America, but across the world. Over 33,000 people attempted to purchase tickets for the Paris leg of her Becoming book tour in 2018, and she is seen as a role model to many not just for her campaigns as First Lady, but because “she has a poise and grace that makes her inspiring to young women [specifically] of colour. She motivates [them] to take on the world, and shows [they] can do it despite racism.”

This is the legacy she has left behind. A legacy of young women and men who believe in themselves more now than they did in 2008, because they have seen someone who looks like them, who grew up like them, who faced their same challenges, hold one of the most respected positions in American government.

Michelle Obama’s legacy is one of hope and the strength of unification, the strength of bringing together our individual stories to build something greater than ourselves.

XVII.III

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Great Beginnings By : No o r Ya s s ein

Certain things, you either love or hate.

There seems to be no in-between. The same can go for people, especially in a field like politics where the tensions (and stakes) run high. Pierre Elliott Trudeau was a great leader whose lasting legacy lies mostly in social justice reform. However, his legacy is being both glorified and forgotten as he mostly began (rather than finalized) the reformation of issues which were not well-established at the time.

Having been in office for so long, Pierre Trudeau was known to many as the “elder statesman” of the West – a nickname wellearned. He was the third-longest-serving Prime Minister in Canadian history, behind only William Mackenzie King and Sir John A. MacDonald, and was involved in politics for many years prior. Trudeau started a remarkable amount of life-changing processes, many of which continue today. The first of these processes was gaining constitutional independence. His efforts allowed Canada to be more in charge of its own destiny. Similarly, another process which he spearheaded was that of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It began a process of constitutionalizing the rights of women and, later on, LGBTQ+ rights, among others, all across the country, and helped to protect those rights from the instability of the political process. He also spearheaded the Divorce Act of 1968, which allowed married couples to divorce without proof of adultery. Both the Charter and Divorce Act were ground-breaking for their time, and their impact is felt today.

THE OBSERVER

P HOTO BY BE T T MANN/ GET TY IM AG ES

If we broaden our view and look at the international stage, the impacts of Trudeau’s legacy can still be felt. He turned Canada into a country that could be seen and could act separately from Britain, no longer being under its influence and control. This further solidified Canada’s independence from the Queen when it came to governance and passing laws, thus introducing a new country to the global arena. Trudeau worked to ensure Canada had its own place on the international stage, establishing diplomatic relations with countries like China (before the U.S. did), while still remaining a part of NATO. Through these initiatives and his social justice reforms, Canada became an example of what could be.

Having previously worked closely with Lester B. Pearson, he began implementing things that Pearson had introduced, and encouraged dialogue between North-South countries, as well as between more industrialized and wealthy countries and less well-developed countries.

However, not everything under Pierre Trudeau’s government was received well.

His focus on social justice reforms at a time of economic recession caused significant uproar. While his accomplishments (such as constitutional reform) had significant positive and long-term effects, his prioritization of social justice at a time when many were suffering economically angered a lot of people. It was difficult for people who had more pressing and immediate needs to accept his focus on long-term issues, particularly when the solutions didn’t have an immediate positive PAGE 12

effect. This may also have been what led to his eventual resignation in 1984. Many of the actions he took were only meant to get the ball rolling on important issues (Constitutional reform or the Charter, for example, or the Divorce Act of 1968). Unfortunately, the ball stopped shortly thereafter, and thus his legacy appears to fall short. Society tends to hold our leaders accountable to current-day standards, and in the case of the Charter, it didn’t go far enough. For that, Trudeau is sometimes criticized, although for its time, it was certainly an unprecedented change. Thus, the blame should not be placed on him – he set a solid foundation which he expected others would build on, and their lack of action is not his fault.

In 2019, the 100th anniversary of his birth took place. However, it was ironically overshadowed by the election campaign of his son – save for a few articles, and a video. The video in particular claimed what a progressive hero he had been, and falsely declared that he held many modern-day views which were relatively uncommon for his time – for instance, that he was pro-choice, or big

on action against global warming, neither of which are true. This, in many ways, represents the way his legacy is often treated. Pierre Trudeau is seen as this shining beacon of hope, and yet besides constitutional independence, the specifics of what he did seem to have been forgotten or blurred over the years. Not only this, but in modern times, many people would like more, and so his legacy gets either downplayed, or overplayed. Some people claim he’s a hero up to modern-day standards, and this is just as false as claiming he wasn’t that impactful. He was a great leader for his time, but he was ultimately still a man of his time, and the changes he made could only go so far. However, we should not punish him for our progress. What can sometimes be forgotten is that without him, there would not be a place for progress to commence. Society is not where we would like it, but his legacy should not take the fall, and just because he did not finish everything he started does not mean what he started isn’t valuable. Thus, instead of blaming him for not doing more, we should be looking to current-day leaders to finish what he started.

P HOTO BY AF P / G ET TY IM AG ES

XVII.III

Queen Elizabeth II: An Extraordinary Life of Purpose B y: Hazu k A s gh ar

PHOTO B Y B IB LIOA R C H IVE S /LIB R A RYA R C H IVE S V I A F L I C K R

P HOTO BY J U L I AN CAL D E R O N W I K I ME DIA CO M M O N S

You know her as the official head of Canada and the Commonwealth of Nations.

Her face is on the Canadian currency, whether on a 20-dollar bill or a quarter.

She has graced the cover of international magazines and newspapers, and has reigned alongside 12 British prime ministers and 13 American presidents. If that isn’t enough, she has ruled over the British monarchy for more than 65 years and became the longest serving monarch in modern history in 2015.

In case you haven’t guessed it as yet, I am speaking of none other than Queen Elizabeth II. Often cited as one of the most famous female leaders in the world, Queen Elizabeth II is the epitome of a leader who has led a meaningful life of purpose and service and THE OBSERVER

has led her nation from the 20th century and into the modern era.

Elizabeth Alexandra Mary was born on April 21, 1926 to the House of Windsor and was the eldest child of the Duke and Duchess of York. At the time of her birth, she was third in the line of succession to the British throne, behind her father and her uncle Edward, who would later become the King of England after the death of King George V. However, the life of the young princess was forever changed when Edward VIII abdicated the throne, forcing Elizabeth’s parents to become King and Queen in 1937. Life for the young princess and her sister was dramatically transformed as Elizabeth became the ‘heiress presumptive’ and would be next in line to PAGE 14

ascend to the throne. However, this moment would come sooner rather than later, as the stress of the war years took a toll on her father. He died 15 years after becoming King.

Consequently, in 1952, at the age of 25, the young princess ascended the British throne and became the new sovereign.

From the time of her accession, the Queen’s position as the head of the Commonwealth and of their respective nations was already established, most notably due to the reign of previous British monarchs who governed over former colonies. However, her reign is unique in the sense that it witnessed a significant evolution in the structure and composition of the Commonwealth from the 20th century and into the 21st century. It began in 1956, when the probability of France to join the Commonwealth was proposed to the UK but was eventually refused. While unsuccessful, this attempt marked the beginning of a series of modifications and desire for change by other countries who sought to reform their alliances with Britain.

In particular, the decades of the 1960s and into the 1970s were particularly challenging for the Queen, as she witnessed the acceleration of decolonization, particularly in Africa and the Caribbean, and a gradual movement to the formation of independent sovereign states. During this time, over 20 nations gained their independence from Britain and adopted a method of self-governance, including Kenya.

Such shifts illustrated how Britain’s ties with its former imperial states were weakened, and how the empire was slowly losing control over newly autonomous nations who were formerly part of the Commonwealth of Nations. Concurrently, the Queen was facing domestic political challenges. The structure of the UK Parliament was continuously evolving as new parties were formed or came into power, and Britain took part in an unsuccessful attempt to capture the Suez Canal. This series of events led to the resignation of Prime Minister Eden, but it also made UK allies question the significance of the Crown in a world characterized by social,

political, and economic change.

Despite the constant shifts and transitions during her reign, Queen Elizabeth II has remained true to the pledge she gave on her 21 st birthday: “I declare before you all, that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service, and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.”

In the process of living up to these words, the Queen’s legacy features both a transition and a decline. According to the historian David Cannadine, she has led during an era of change in Britain, characterized by its transition to a more fluid, multicultural and secular society. This also included the downsizing of the British empire and Commonwealth of Nations, which consequently led to a decline in British power at the international level. Despite these changes and challenges, Queen Elizabeth II has been a symbol of orderly management during times of domestic and international evolution and shifts in power. Consequently, she is known for upholding a steadfast mentality and countenance during times of instability, change, and crises. This enables her to effortlessly manage the tedious duties of the monarchy while still ensuring its relevance in the modern era.

It is for this reason that Her Majesty the Queen is worthy of praise for her extraordinary life of purpose and service.

She has always led with dignity and grace and serves as a constant in British society that is both reassuring and admirable. While she has witnessed a significant amount of social and political change during her reign, the Queen embodies all the qualities of a female leader whose legacy is worthy of attention and admiration: character, dignity, and tenacity, to name a few. It is these traits and qualities that have been integral in allowing her to reign for over 60 years, and to ensure the continuing relevance of the Crown from the 20th and into the 21 st century. While many people, including myself, are unfamiliar of a life without a monarch, Queen Elizabeth II has certainly cemented herself as one of the most prominent female leaders in the world.

XVII.III

Elon Musk: A Hero in the Realm of Environmentalism By: Van ja Bodja last year’s global average temperature was 1.2°C above the pre-industrial (1850-1900) level. The consistent increase in energy consumption, which is the leading factor for GHG emissions, has been steadily rising since the industrial period. The graph below created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration exemplifies the rate at where global temperatures are headed towards. As shown by the red trend, continuing our GHG emissions at the rate at which we are speeds temperature increase to reach 4°C by 2100. But as shown by the blue trend, if we completely transitioned away from fossil fuels we could P H OTO B Y ST E VE JURVE T S O N/ F L I C K R slow this increase to only 2°C. Although a 2°C

As our lives continue within the midst or 4°C increase doesn’t seem like much, to put of the Covid-19 pandemic, another fear still it into perspective, in the past it only took a carries above us; climate change. Although 1°C - 2°C drop in the world temperature to it may seem that climate change has been send our Earth into a Little Ice Age. an exhausted topic within the media, the urgency of the issue still sustains. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) continue to melt ice caps, raise sea levels, and damage ecosystems, and the increasing environmental damage is growing at a faster pace than countries are able to counter. Although global average temperatures continue to rise alongside GHG emissions, there are solutions available. While political and economical restraints make a DATA P R O C E S S I NG BY JAY H NI LO, C I CS - N C & CM IP 3 global energy transition seem impossible, Elon Musk could argue otherwise. Musk’s Although global warming is inevitable, innovations within solar power technology the most beneficial solution to slow warming could potentially save the world by shifting down would be to invest in a transition towards the global economy. While global warming renewable energy sources. With that said, Elon is inevitably shifting the world in front of us, Musk has been devoting a lot of his life’s work Elon Musk’s intelligence, innovation, and towards altering the view of renewable energy, influence could have the power to slow our specifically solar power. Although it has GHG emissions and help us sustain life on been debated that nuclear power would be solar power. essential in the process of sustaining on solar

In an article published by NASA recently, power, there has been a difference of opinion the year 2020 is tied with 2016 for being between which would be best to sustain on. the warmest year on record. As interpreted, While nuclear doesn’t emit greenhouse gases, THE OBSERVER

PAGE 16

nuclear power accidents can be catastrophic.

Following the explosion in Chernobyl of 1986, 200,000 children were diagnosed with thyroid cancer and 28 firemen died both from radiation. Solar power, on the other hand, is renewable, has low maintenance costs, and has a multitude of diverse applications. As is evident, solar power would be the safest and most efficient energy to rely on.

As Tesla cars continue to succeed within the electric car market, its publicity usually overshadows Musk’s other work. After his success with PayPal, he launched Tesla in 2003 with a plan to change the vehicle market for the better. Using the revenue he made from his zero-emission sports car, Roadstar, he projected that revenue towards creating the Model 3Tesla whose base price begins at $35,000. While these cars were in high demand, Musk went on to buy out SolarCity in 2016 to reinvent solar power. His plan to transition economies into being renewable energy reliant, specifically on solar power, begins with three parts; firstly, integrating solar power within suburban use, then into production facilities, and lastly, increasing electric power to cover all ground-based transportation.

His plan initially began when he designed solar roofs that could withstand 200mph of hail for houses and some of his Tesla models.

Musk also went on to create one of his biggest projects yet: he began the production of a gigafactory in Reno, Nevada. Although only 30% completed, this ‘to be’ solar-powered factory is designed to be net-zero energy and is going to be the highest-volume battery plant in the world. These gigafactories are set to produce Model 3 motors, batteries, and power walls that store solar energy in homes.

In addition to his plans to transition suburban housing and production facilities towards solar power, he also is working on Tesla Semi’s..

These vehicles will have an estimated range of 500 miles and are projected to beat diesel trucks on cost per mile.

With Elon Musk continuously innovating new technology to help our transition away from fossil fuels, his plan is already well underway.

In 2016, ChoZen Retreat, an environment-

P H OTO BY P L AN ET LAB S , IN C.

AN AERIAL SHOT OF THE TESLA GIGAFACTORY IN SPARKS, NEVADA

focused resort on the 22,000 acre Saint Sebastian nature preserve, unveiled their 44 kilowatts Solar Roof made out entirely of Tesla solar panels. These panels, which camouflage with dummy panels, power 80% of the facility’s total energy use and store energy in Powerwall batteries in case of unfavourable weather. Not only have facilities begun to transition towards renewable energy, but countries are leaning towards electric car use. In Norway, their market share of electric car use is 49.10% with Tesla’s Model 3 car being the most purchased in 2019. Elon Musk is showing renewable energy can be an accessible, efficient, and effective way of decreasing GHG emissions.

While our economy still relies on fossil fuels, it is not too late to decrease our usage and slow down climate change. Although even with proper measures in place, our world will inevitably increase by 2°C, if GHG emissions don’t decrease soon then our world could potentially increase its average temperature by 4°C instead. Luckily, there is a way and time to fix this. Elon Musk has been constantly investing in electric vehicles and solarpowered technology. While his brand Tesla is world-renowned, he is also investing in solarpowered production facilities and suburban housing. He hopes to change the way solarpowered energy is viewed. While climate change seems to be talked about a lot in the political field, Elon Musk has been essential in actually creating change rather than only talking about it.

XVII.III

Jacinda Ardern Approaching New Zealand, the World, and the Future with Empathy By : Va n e s s a E llia

Being a political leader is a tough job as it is, with the effects of climate change worsening each day, the growing presence of technology, and of course a global pandemic, the task has proven to be a formidable challenge for leaders all around the globe. For New Zealand (NZ), however, handling issues like these are only a few of the many ways it has set a high standard for proficient leadership with their Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

Born July 26, 1980 in Hamilton, NZ, Ardern cultivated a widely known and revered presence in politics far before her election in 2017. Having grown up in a small town affiliated with a lot of gang activity and inequality, Ardern was inspired to pursue politics from a young age. Her ample experience in politics came from joining the NZ Labour Party at just 17 years old, followed by working two and a half years in the cabinet of British Prime Minister Tony Blair as an associate director, becoming the president of the International Union of Socialist Youth in 2007, and many other notable achievements. Finally in August 2017, Ardern became the leader of the Labour Party and in October of that same year, the country’s youngest PM.

Since then, Ardern has been named one of the most powerful women internationally, profiled in the media as a leader who operates on trust and empathy. In a TIME Magazine article, she was described as having a “real gift THE OBSERVER

to articulate a form of leadership that embodies strength and sanity, while also pushing an agenda of compassion and community.”

Her ample publicity and applause stems from her long list of successful approaches to issues like the pandemic, a volcanic eruption, the Christchurch terrorist attack, and even everyday issues like LGBTQI+, minimum wage and immigration. In the case of COVID-19, NZ imposed a national lockdown and banned travelers from China much earlier than other countries; before it had even registered a single case of the virus. It then shut its borders when only a handful of cases broke out. Despite these severe and sudden policies, a poll in April 2020 found that 88% of the population trusted their government to handle COVID-19 and 84% approved of Ardern’s response. Since her re-election in 2020, her goal has been to not only flatten the curve like most countries, but to eliminate the virus in NZ altogether. As of January 13, 2021, NZ has 2228 total COVID-19 cases with 2141 recovered and only 25 deaths, and with NZ’s booming health system that has yet to overload, Arden may reach her goal.

Alongside COVID-19, Ardern’s also faced a devastating volcanic eruption and terrorist attack during her term. The eruption occurred on White Island, and Ardern immediately started providing assistance to the affected community through relief funds and government-provided resources. She displayed the same quick response time when Greater Christchurch suffered from a terrorist attack. Refusing to name the attacker publicly, Arden announced gun control measures just 6 days after and banned all military style semiautomatics just weeks later.

Going into her second term, Ardern focused on raising the number of accepted refugees by 50%, providing more funding for LGBTQI+ mental health resources, increasing minimum wage from $15.75 to $18.90, and delivering a Well-Being Budget focused on COVID-19 recovery by creating jobs and supporting businesses. These are only a few of her achievements; in fact, the full list is so long that when challenged to run through it in PAGE 18

2 minutes, she was nowhere close to finishing in time.

Pushing forward, Ardern’s plans for the future are just as impressive. Since the terrorist attack, Ardern has worked with technology experts like Microsoft’s Brad Smith to monitor social media, and respond to and prevent any media sharing of extremist or terrorist activity.

She has also prioritized climate change through banning nuclear vessel weapons, offshore oil exploration, as well issuing hefty fines to retailers using single-use plastic bags. 150 million trees were also planted and Ardern has signed several multilateral treaties with other like-minded nations and urged politicians to join their fight against climate change.

Through her extensive record of achievements, Ardern has displayed a model of authority that puts kindness first for; “kindness,

and not being afraid to be kind, or to focus on, or be really driven by empathy,” she has said is at the heart of her leadership. With a tenacity for displaying sincere goodness and initiative when approaching issues, Jacinda Ardern has truly served as a leader that solidifies her and her country’s reputations as safe, stable and welcoming and this fact will prevail as her legacy. Her methods of handling any issues thrown her way with such grace is something that should not be ignored, but serve as a model for how leaders all across the globe should act. I believe New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern is someone worth looking towards for influence; someone who is taking major steps in the direction of making our world a better place. The hope here is that young people and government systems everywhere use her as a role model now and for many years to come.

P HOTO BY HAGE N HO P K I NS / GET TY IM AG ES

XVII.III

The Incredible Leaders of the COVID-19 Pandemic By: Ca ssan dra van Dru n e n

“There’s a job to be done”- Jacinda Arden

During the coronavirus pandemic, we have seen leaders, both political and medical, rise to the occasion to protect the citizens of their countries and the world. Many leaders globally, including New Zealand’s Janica Arden, America’s Jose Andres and Iran’s Shirin Rouhani, have each used and shown excellent strength and leadership throughout one of the most challenging years of the twenty-first century. I am honoured to share the stories of these incredible leaders and many more.

When the world was preparing to fight the coronavirus, certain country leaders were ready and stepped up to protect the citizens of their nations. Jacinda Arden, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, was one of those leaders. In March, Arden was quick to close the country’s borders entirely, noting that all New Zealanders had to go into self-isolation if they had come into the country. She early on said they were going to make strict regulations and “make no apologies” for them. She acted fast as she realized the nation’s health system would be unable to function if a big outbreak were to occur.

Along with scientific experts, she was able to help implement a four-stage alert system based on the existing wildfire alerts to indicate the current risk and the required social distancing practices. By effectively communicating with the public and taking insight from various experts, Arden was able to declare the pandemic over in June of 2020, reporting one of the lowest coronavirus mortality rates of 1 death per 204 360 people.

Other political leaders who can be commended for their actions during this pandemic include Angela Merkel, a chancellor in Germany who stood up early to advocate to take the virus seriously and Katrin Jakobsdottir, Iceland’s THE OBSERVER

Prime Minister who developed free coronavirus testing for its citizens so they could facilitate the rate in which COVID-19 was spreading.

On the front lines of the pandemic, doctors and nurses have shown exemplary dedication, commitment, and leadership, some losing their lives fighting. Ophthalmologist Li Wenliang from Wuhan Central Hospital in China was one of the first people to alert the public about the new virus that was emerging in the city. However noble his actions were, he was detained by Chinese authorities and forced to recant his warning. After release, Dr. Li continued to treat his patients, only to become infected and succumb to COVID-19 on February 17th of 2020. The Chinese government has since honoured him as a “martyr” and Fortune has named him one of 2020’s World’s Greatest Leaders.

Also on this list is Dr. Shirin Rouhani, a physician from Iran. Even after being infected with COVID-19 herself, Dr. Rouhani continued to treat patients due to a severe shortage in medical staff up until her death. A photo of her connected to an IV drip while working went viral after her death, commending her bravery, strength, and leadership. These medical personnel along with many others globally were influential in leading global citizens through the pandemic, including Dr. Amy O’Sullivan of America, Dr. Kamran Khan of Canada, Dr. Maurizio Cecconi of Italy, and many more.

Outside of both the political and medical landscapes, other community leaders have taken the charge to lead the public bodies through the struggles of the pandemic.

Amongst these leaders is Jose Andres, a Spanish-American chef and restaurateur. Not only has he been providing food for those PAGE 20

affected by the pandemic (serving nearly 100,000 meals a day to healthcare workers and others in coronavirus hotspots), he has provided many jobs for restaurant employees.

Continuing his selflessness and leadership in 2021, Chef Andres sent 120 pizzas to the National Guard and police officers present after the Capitol Rioting in early January, stating that “in a very strange and complicated night, we can make sure that those young men and women, often forgotten, can be taken care of”.

Also taking part in philanthropic acts is Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter. In 2020, Dorsey gave away more than $300 million dollars to about 120 nonprofit organizations. Dorsey

has been very open about how his money is being distributed, tweeting out a Google spreadsheet tracking his donations, one of his first donations being $4.2 million between him and Rihanna being given to help victims of domestic violence affected by the stay-athome orders in Los Angeles.

The actions of these heroic individuals and many others offer hope as we move into a new year fighting the coronavirus. I hope that as we continue to fight this pandemic on a global scale, leaders who have shown exemplary leadership are able to inspire, advise, and demonstrate how we can successfully overcome the tragedies of the past year.

P H OTO BY J C GE L L I D O N O N U N S P LASH

XVII.III

The Dangers of Nostalgia: Why We Should Not Romanticize The Bush Era

By: Rachel R i d d el l

P HOTO C R E D I T: E R I C D R AP E R / T H E W H I T E H O U S E V I A G ET TY IM AG ES

As the United States enters a new political chapter with the inauguration of 46th President Joe Biden, the actions of past administrations have begun to fall out of the memory of the general public.

This is stark in the case of George W. Bush, whose reputation has seen attempts of rehabilitation in the media from both the left and right of the political spectrum. From being friends with Ellen Degeneres to his love for painting, the 43 rd President is often depicted as a harmless elderly man. While this image may be especially resonating as the world is reflecting on President Donald Trump’s tyrannical governance, these optics should not distract citizens from the chaos of Bush’s administration, and the implications of it that still linger today. This is especially evident in his reckless military interventions and erratic handling of Hurricane Katrina.

The most horrific event of the Bush administration was arguably the reckless and brash decision of invading Iraq.

Bush exploited the fears and impending Islamophobia of Americans –– as a consequence of the September 11 attacks THE OBSERVER

–– to enter a war with Iraq, despite 9/11 having no correlation to the country-atlarge. Scholars have theorized a multitude of reasons as to why the Bush administration invaded Iraq, and many of these motives go far beyond mere retaliation for 9/11. One of the notorious causes for the war, intellectuals have suggested, was for the United States to maintain its monopoly over oil. Raymond Hinnebusch for the journal Critical Middle Eastern Studies writes that “the US, far from paying the costs of the politicization of oil, has managed to use Middle East crises to reinforce its hegemony while offloading their main costs onto others.” The Iraq War was a vehicle in which the United States exercised their dominance over oil, while subsequently terrorizing the lands that they entered.

The irony of the United States’ armed conflict in Iraq supposedly defending the violence on their homeland could not be more blatant when considering the death toll. While the number of Iraqi civilian deaths is still difficult to gage, there has been statistical research in recent years to PAGE 22

calculate adequate estimations. A 2013 analysis created by Iraqi, Canadian and American researchers for PLOS medicine found that “approximately 405,000 (95% uncertainty interval 48,000—751,000) excess deaths [are] attributable to the conflict.”

It is worthy to note that this analysis only recognized deaths up until 2011: the site Iraq Body Count (IBC) estimates that there were 82,000 additional civilian deaths resulting from the conflict in Iraq. While financial interests and capitalistic pursuits spurred the Bush administration to initiate war, innocent Iraqis with no stake in this dilemma lost their lives. United States citizens, too, suffered from this war: Muslim Americans have spoken out against the rise in discrimination against their religion during and after the war. Aman Agah of Manassas, Virginia recalls his father “who taught [him] to stand up to bigotry, now feared not just the police, but American strangers in general” due to the conflict overseas infiltrating the American psyche with Islamophobic sentiments. By investigating both the causes and aftermath of the Iraq War, it becomes clear that in modern times we should not dismiss the controversies of Bush’s administration as trivial, even in comparison to Trump.

Another crucial factor in better comprehending Bush’s problematic legacy is his response to Hurricane Katrina. The 2005 natural disaster displaced thousands of people from their homes in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, and it is estimated that more than 1000 people died as a result.

While devastated Americans pleaded for help and government support in accessing basic resources, the President remained apathetic. It is reported that Bush continued his vacation at his luxurious ranch in his home state of Texas when the disaster struck. The president, after pleas from his aides, returned to Washington two days after Katrina first arrived –– ending his notoriously long 29 day vacation. His delayed response to the hurricane is widely remembered by

the public sphere in Kanye West’s accusation during a live fundraiser for Katrina victims: “George Bush doesn’t care about Black people.” While the quote is often recalled in a humorous light, however, it should not distract from the feelings of neglect –– from their own president –– that many Black individuals faced during this crisis. Jacobin Magazine reports that in New Orleans –– one of the cities that underwent the greatest effects of the hurricane –– “in some areas the death rate for black residents was as much as four times higher than that of nonblack residents.” A Pew Research Center poll reflects the disparity that Black people felt in Bush’s inadequacy after the hurricane: “Just 19% of blacks rated the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina as excellent or good, compared with 41% of whites. And nearly three times as many whites (31%) as blacks (11%) said then-President George W. Bush did all he could to get relief efforts going quickly.” During one of the most destructive natural disasters in American history, George W. Bush demonstrated an attitude of aloofness, which should not be glossed over in assessing his presidency.

From the impulsive decision to invade Iraq to the failures in sufficiently helping Americans after Hurricane Katrina, George W. Bush and his administration should not be romanticized. Despite the inclinations of both Democrats and Republicans to rehash his presidency as a relatively calm period, it is important to thoroughly examine his time in office so that amnesia regarding a detrimental past does not emerge.

While Donald Trump was undoubtedly an unprecedented figure to sit in the Oval Office, nostalgia for Bush’s era should not occur as a result when considering his dangerous legacy.

XVII.III

Past, Present, and Future Leaders of Cancer Research By : Ca s s a n d ra va n Dr unen

PHOTO B Y N ATIONA L CA N C E R IN ST IT UT E ON U NS P L AS H

THE OBSERVER

“It’s got to keep going without me” - Terry Fox

The leading cause of death in Canada.

An estimated 617 Canadian diagnosed with it everyday in 2020, and 228 dying from it every 24 hours. One in Two Canadians is expected to develop it in their lifetimes. Knowing all of these statistics, it’s no wonder people don’t want to hear the word ‘cancer’ with regards to their families, friends, and loved ones. Globally, political and scientific leaders have put extraordinary efforts into fighting this illness. Leaders of the past have helped pave the way for the current leaders, who are working to help cure cancer in the future.

Many science leaders of the past, including Paul Ehrilcih, for his discovery of the immune surveillance hypothesis, and George Papanicolaou, for his creation of the pap smear, should be commended for their incredible work in helping to tackle cancer.

However, a man I will focus on is Sidney Farber, the “father of modern chemotherapy”.

A world-renowned paediatric pathologist from Boston, Farber is most well known for his 1948 study where he demonstrated that folic acid antagonists, including 4-aminopteroyl-glutamic acid (aminopterin), could provide temporary remission in children with acute undifferentiated leukaemia. This discovery led to the creation and use of other chemotherapeutic agents, singly or in combination.

Not only was cancer research reflective of his impeccable leadership, but Farber also started the “Jimmy Fund”, which worked to raise money for Farber and other researchers to treat and cure childhood leukemia. He was also insistent on developing what is now known as ‘total care’. He was a firm believer that all care required for cancer patients should be provided in one place so that everyone involved in the treatment could plan together, highlighting his impeccable leadership qualities. Farber, along with other scientists of his day, should be given the highest gratitude for their contributions to modern-day cancer treatment.

Another incredible female scientist who left her mark on cancer research was Jimmie Holland, the founder of “psycho-oncology”.

During her career, she was an advocate for supporting the emotional and psychological needs of individuals suffering from cancer.

PAGE 24

To accomplish this goal, Holland created the aforementioned “psycho-oncology”, which combined both psychology and oncology so that the psychological ailments associated with cancer treatment could be addressed simultaneously in 1984. Her work to reduce the stigma surrounding mental health and further advance modern cancer treatment has not gone unnoticed, defying the fact that many scientific women of history have been less recognized or acknowledged for their incredible achievements.

William Breitbart, the current Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, has described Holland as “a cancer pioneer, a remarkable woman, and a once-in-a-generation influencer”.

While cancer research is highly important to develop cancer treatments and cures, funding and political backing help researchers to do this work. American leaders such as President Franklin Roosevelt, who established the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in 1937 and President Richard Nixon who established the National Cancer Act in 1971, used their positions to help aid what Nixon described as the ‘war on cancer’.

On the other side of the border, Terry Fox found his own way to garner cancer awareness and funding through his Marathon of Hope. After being diagnosed with osteosarcoma at 18 and having his leg amputated, Terry Fox decided he would run across Canada, from shore to shore, to raise money to fight cancer at the age of 22.

Even though he had to end his marathon early due to his cancer resurging, in 1981, a year after Terry Fox started his run, he had raised over $24 million dollars. Since then, Terry Fox has inspired individuals globally to raise over $800 million dollars to support cancer research.

Due to the aforementioned leaders, the future of cancer research is bright. As we continue to make scientific advancements, the face of cancer treatment and knowledge will change for the better. While some have used research grants and past advancements to pioneer potential vaccine treatments for cancers, others have developed artificial intelligence tools that will be able to predict future cancers. As long as we continue to support cancer research, and are guided by impeccable leaders in the field, we will hopefully be able to shrink this growing mortality rate.

XVII.III

P HOTO BY NAT I O NAL CANC E R I NST I T U T E O N U N S P LASH

The Iron Lady’s Legacy: The Unwilling Icon By: Claire Parsons

P H OTO B Y G E T TY I MAGE S

THE OBSERVER

If you asked Margaret Hilda Thatcher if she ever thought she would one day be one of the UK’s longest serving Prime Ministers she would have considered you delusional.

The Oxford chemistry student, born in 1925, was an exemplary student from her very first day of classes. She then went on to study for the bar while she simultaneously worked as a chemist after graduation. Only after serving as a successful tax law barrister did she decide to go into politics. In modern times, Thatcher would be considered an early star, one to watch, a bright young woman in STEM with an interest in economic policy with the work ethic to match. She was everything the feminist movement of her era wished for her to be. This is, of course, where things get complicated as Margaret Thatcher was anything but a feminist.

Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister at the beginning of the second wave of feminism and it would last far past her tenure. As she unpacked her suitcase into Downing street, women across the world were advocating for an equal shot at careers and opportunities while a woman was sitting in one of the most important offices in the world. One of the most prominent slogans of the second wave was that “the personal is political”. As such, the election of Margaret Thatcher and the Tories she represented should have been considered a massive win for the movement. It was, yet in many respects, it wasn’t. Margaret Thatcher’s political legacy is divided on partisan lines, understandable for a politician of PAGE 26

her renowned. She would have said herself that a boring legacy of her tenure over the United Kingdom was never something that interested her. What is fascinating is her connection, or lack thereof, to the women’s liberation movement.

Prime Minister Thatcher was a force, not one to be reckoned with on the house floor or behind closed doors. Some of her political highlights included redefining the British Conservative ideology away from caution and toward reform, privatizing industry, limiting expenditures, and acting forcefully on matters of international affairs.

Thatcher made deliberate choices to try and invigorate the economy by selling off government housing, refusing to buckle to large scale miner protests, and cutting back on the crowded government industries.

These were classic and strategic Conservative policy decisions, decisions which would have required an exceptional amount of nerve, something Thatcher had in spades. Thatcher was more likely to be critiqued on the critically rising unemployment rates because of her cuts to industry than she was to be about the hierarchy of her marriage (although she was heartily criticized on both). This lack of focus on Thatcher as a woman put a focus directly on her policies, this non gendered perspective was policy that the second wave could point to, to ridicule the stereotypes associated with women. Thatcher’s policy, however, had nothing to do with amplifying her fellow woman, in fact, she cut back on things like childcare and only took 1 woman

into her cabinet during her 11 year tenure.

It was clear that Margaret Thatcher, herself, was not a feminist. As the movement has noted after her time and office and after her death; women that break the glass ceiling are not feminist just by achieving.

They need to make deliberate choices that amplify other women. However, the Iron Lady’s legacy might be indirectly feminist in it’s residual effect. This was a woman who took the country to war with Argentina over the Falkland islands. She served as the link between Reagan and Gorbachev. All while radically reforming economic policy against a society that stated she stood no chance at success in politics, a sentiment she once believed. Margaret Thatcher, while no women’s champion, is an example if nothing else and her legacy represents a woman ahead of her time. While her policies may be divisive and her style of governance deeply critiqued and examined, it must be remembered how gender neutral that approach to political analysis is. One that, in her time, would have only been offered to her male colleagues. It cannot be said that Margaret Thatcher did nothing for women even if the things she ended up providing were unintended and indirect. Regardless of her politics, Margaret Thatcher was a trailblazer and a woman in power. Although when you think of Prime Minister Thatcher, I bet you do not think of her as simply a woman and for that we should all be truly grateful.

XVII.III

Brian Mulroney: The Personification of Leadership By: Camilo Seb as ti an

P H OTO BY U S D oD V I A W I K I ME D IA CO M M O N S

When contemplating who I would dedicate this article to, I began by establishing criteria that describe exemplary leadership qualities in an individual. A leader must be an individual who has made significant contributions to society, and who does not shy from making difficult, sometimes unpopular, decisions if they will contribute to general welfare. I decided to write on a Canadian who made incredible contributions to the country in his time as prime minister, and who has been one of Canada’s finest and most consequential leaders. This man is former prime minister, the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, who led the nation from 1984 to 1993.

While I have never had the honor of THE OBSERVER

meeting the former prime minister, I have nevertheless been inspired by his early life and ultimately his work as Canada’s 18th prime minister. Prime minister Mulroney began to show at an early age his strong moral character, and he often shares the advice that his father gave him when his family was struggling financially. When a young Mulroney offered to remain in his hometown of Baie-Comeau, Quebec and seek an apprenticeship at a paper mill, his father told him: “The only way out of a paper mill town is through a university door, and you Brian are going to university.” The former prime minister attended St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, and graduated with a Bachelor’s Degree in PAGE 28

Political Science. Mulroney then pursued a law degree, and worked in private practice before entering the political spheres. It was in politics that he earned the respect of many Canadians and his rightful place in the records of history.

Former United States Secretary of State James Baker III, described Brian Mulroney as “the greatest statesmen of our time.”. When examining Mulroney’s record as prime minister, there is no label more fitting. During his tenure, Mulroney led the country through times of both prosperity and turmoil. At home, Mulroney campaigned on and won the fight against opponents of free trade, deregulation, and privatization. Other significant challenges that Mulroney endured included two attempts to achieve national unity via constitutional reform, tripling Canada’s legal immigration population, and implementing the Multicultural Act, which reaffirmed Canada’s identity as a nation of immigrants and as a country that values the diversity of its population as one of its greatest strengths.

In addition, under the stellar leadership of the former prime minister, Canada participated in a variety of consequential foreign policy missions, such as the fight against apartheid in South Africa, the achievement of German unification at the end of the Cold War, and providing humanitarian aid to Ethiopia during the country’s famine crisis. Other accomplishments of his include the negotiation and ratification of both the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), as well as the institution of several key environmental agreements such as the Acid Rain Treaty and ensuring Canada’s participation in the Convention of Biological Diversity in Rio de Janeiro. Mulroney’s environmental commitment earned him the distinction of Canada’s Greenest prime minister.

There were numerous visions that former prime minister Brian Mulroney sought that were extremely unpopular at the time of

their conception, one of which already been mentioned: free trade. Many Canadians and influential political leaders vehemently opposed Mulroney’s mission to establish a free trade agreement with the United States, arguing that it would damage the Canadian economy and make Canada subordinate to the United States. With time, however, these claims proved to be anything but accurate.

Today Canada’s economy flourishes as a result of the free trade agreement that Mulroney implemented. Employment in Canada increased at a significant rate, the country’s GDP rose and the relationship between Canada and the United States improved after years of hostility and isolation. Another example of prime minister Mulroney’s unpopular decisions was the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Leading a Conservative government, the notion of imposing a new tax on Canadians seemed contradictory, however, the revenue collected under this tax meant that Canadians in need were able to receive support through government programs, and has overall functioned to strengthen and support the Canadian economy.

When asked about popularity and approval ratings, former prime minister Brian Mulroney has consistently responded that in the grand scheme of things popularity is meaningless. Mulroney argues that a leader is not one who takes the most popular course of action, but the one who makes the right decision even if it means compromising high approval ratings and chance of reelection. Indeed, a leader is one who has the ability to see beyond the present and plan for the future. Most of the former prime minister’s policy initiatives were unpopular and controversial at the time they were introduced, but scores of political scientists and Canadian citizens realized later on that his contribution to Canada and the world remains unmatched.

XVII.III

Putin Must Abandon the Sinking Ship of Authoritarianism By : A lexan dra Pau l

P H OTO BY S E R GE Y P O NO MAR E V O N N YT IM ES

Without a doubt, the past few years have presented a unique political chaos that continues to have rippling effects around the world. Experts and democracy watchdogs alike agreed that 2016 and 2017 demonstrated an alarming global rise of authoritarianism, with the election of former United States President Donald Trump underpinning the conversation.

This undemocratic ideology found a stronghold in Russia under Vladimir Putin, and his 21-yearlong regime has become notorious for its ongoing human rights violations and political manipulations. However, Putin has not gone THE OBSERVER

unopposed. Recently, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was unjustly arrested upon his return to Moscow after being poisoned, which he maintains was done at the behest of the Russian President. This sparked massive protests across Russia, with over 100,000 people participating in 109 cities. Those who flooded the streets and pelted police with snowballs are not alone in their rejection of authoritarian regimes. Across the world, similar protests exploded in response to encroachments on democracy, notably in Hong Kong and recently in Belarus. Collectively, these point to a responsive global anti-authoritarian PAGE 30

movement and caution leaders like Putin to reassess their global presence, reputation and legacy.

Vladimir Putin became Prime Minister and later President of Russia in 1999, holding both roles until 2000 when he began his eight year presidency. To skirt Russian constitutional limitations, Putin reverted to being Prime Minister in 2008 but successfully ran to become President in 2012 and again in 2018. However, this impressive streak of political domination came alongside widespread allegations of electoral fraud. In 2020, Putin proposed sweeping changes to the Russian constitution that would grant him the ability to run for two additional 6-year terms, which passed amid accusations of vote manipulation, sparking mass protests. Shortly thereafter, opposition leader Alexei Navalny was poisoned in Siberia by a military-grade nerve agent. After recovering in Germany, Navalny returned to Moscow in January and was arrested immediately upon arrival despite no evidence of criminal activity.

Russians responded by staging the largest demonstrations since 2018 in support of Navalny across the expansive country. The arrest was also internationally decried, adding to a chorus of condemnations that have characterized Putin’s reputation for years. There is increasing speculation that these protests indicate a distinct shift in Russian politics, as they coincide with growing discontent surrounding the devastating economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic. This leaves Putin, poised to cling to his rule now traversing three decades, in a politically precarious position.

Russians are not alone in their rebellion against authoritarian governments.

A keystone story in the discussion around these demonstrations is the pro-democracy marches that took place in Hong Kong. An estimated one million demonstrators flooded the streets on June 9, 2019 to protest the Hong Kong extradition bill and express their general concern about the erosion of their autonomy from mainland China. The resulting state and police response only agitated the protests, leading to a subsequent turnout of 2 million demonstrators for the following march. The Hong Kong protests, characterized by their

astounding organized and methodical nature, were supported by sister demonstrations in 40 cities around the world, aided by the activists’ social media presence. China, well-known for its grip over protests and narratives within its borders, faces ongoing scrutiny for its handling of the marches and their fallout, attempting to enact increasingly undemocratic measures to ensure control. More recently, there has been an outpouring of dissent in Belarus in response to the re-election of Aliaksandr Lukashenka, Belarusian President since 1994, in August of 2020. Protestors were met with a decidedly anti-democratic crackdown, but international pressure continues to support demonstrators.

Opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, currently leading uprisings against Lukashenka from Lithuania, has become widely recognized as Belarus’ president-elect and continues to call upon global leaders to intervene and back protestors.

Ultimately, the path before these leaders is clear. The time for authoritarianism is running out and international pressure for change is mounting. The pandemic has left people more cynical and critical of their governments, and global awareness of anti-authoritarianism makes their suppression increasingly difficult.

The leaders of these regimes will be forced to reckon with their participation in the undemocratic trends of the last decade and global democratic leaders are unlikely to forget their offences anytime soon as the outpouring of support for the Hong Kong and Belarusian protests demonstrates a keen and worldwide interest in steering away from totalitarian regimes. As a prominent leader who faces constant scrutiny from surrounding states, Putin has the opportunity to step down and offer Russia a new way forward: a path towards genuine democracy and re-acceptance by the international community. However, should he choose to maintain his authoritarian grip on the country, his legacy will forever be intertwined with the gross injustices of his tenure. It is time for him, and leaders like him, to accept that the authoritarian ship is in disarray and it is time to jump, lest they sink with it.

XVII.III

The O

bs er v

e

O r

Facebook: The Observer - Queen’s University

Instagram: @theobserver.qiaa

Website:

https://theobserver-qiaa.org/