The current COVID-19 pandemic has grown to be one of the worst pandemics ever faced. In order to fight this virus, measures have been adopted that restrict personal freedom. It is therefore of...Show moreThe current COVID-19 pandemic has grown to be one of the worst pandemics ever faced. In order to fight this virus, measures have been adopted that restrict personal freedom. It is therefore of great importance to acknowledge the human rights costs of all the measures imposed to tackle COVID-19. The purpose of this study is to examine to what extent human rights were violated, with specific attention to freedom from discrimination, freedom of information, freedom of movement and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention during the current pandemic. To fulfill the aim, a qualitative content analysis was applied, which analyzed five speeches by Western countries and five speeches by Asian countries. Differences and similarities were examined and subsequently the impact on human rights was analyzed. Six main themes emerged: mitigation, collaborative behavior, support, speech, treatment and justification. The key findings of this study are that human rights were evidently violated during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, none of the analyzed speeches attempts to justify its measures in relation with human rights. Additionally, only a few speeches openly state from where their information originates. This is problematic and simultaneously open for improvement.Show less
In December 2019, the first case of the SARS-Cov-2 virus was identified in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China (Lavazza & Farina, 2021). In the next few months, the virus spread rapidly across Asia,...Show moreIn December 2019, the first case of the SARS-Cov-2 virus was identified in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China (Lavazza & Farina, 2021). In the next few months, the virus spread rapidly across Asia, Europe and North America, many countries responding with far reaching COVID-19 measures: closing shops, travel bans and lockdowns (Taylor, 2021). In order to avoid social unrest and to create trust among the people, many governments appealed to experts to advise and justify unpopular and strict COVID-19 measures such as quarantine and lockdowns (Lavazza & Farina, 2020). In The Netherlands, the Outbreak Management Team (OMT) took on this role, by advising the Dutch government, as part of the RIVM, in case of a cross-regional/national outbreak of an infectious disease, like the COVID-19 virus (RIVM, 2021). In this thesis, the author analyses twelve press conferences by Dutch government officials during the first COVID-19 wave in the Netherlands. The aim of this research is to demonstrate how the Dutch cabinet used the OMT to gain legitimacy for the build up and reduction of COVID-19 measures. A Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is used to analyse linguistic aspects and identify discourses and themes wherein the Dutch government gains public support and justifies different actions taken (Van Dijk, 1993). This research will specifically compare how the role of OMT is portrayed differently between the build up and reduction of COVID-19 measures. The author hypothesized that the OMT is more often and strongly referred to in the build up of measures compared to the reduction of measures. This study sheds light on the broader topic of experts in the COVID-19 crisis, crisis communication and the broader tension between the role of experts and creating legitimacy in decision making.Show less
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has put many political leaders in the spotlight. While almost all countries struggled to mitigate the virus, predominantly the well-capable democratic countries...Show moreBackground: The COVID-19 pandemic has put many political leaders in the spotlight. While almost all countries struggled to mitigate the virus, predominantly the well-capable democratic countries acted indecisively and were reluctant to respond. Autocratic countries, in contrast, performed better, especially in the first eight weeks after the outbreak. Interestingly, every country worldwide adopted a somehow different crisis response strategy, but they had one thing in similar: broadcasting a national television address to inform the nation. Due to the extremely high number of views, every word matters, and hence it sparked the interest to dive deeper into this correlation between language and the citizens' trust and compliance. Methods: For this study, a content analysis was conducted on these live addresses to the nation. Throughout the research, a comparative political perspective is used to discover possible similarities and differences between the two regimes. In total, speeches of eight countries were analyzed with a mix between inductive and deductive codes (China, Vietnam, Russia, Niger, U.S., France, U.K., Germany). Findings: Four primary themes emerged: sentiment towards the virus, attempts to achieve obedience, described strategy, and expected timespan. All leaders spread their deep concerns, however, autocracies leaders more often emphasized the high risks of transmission, and did not downplay the risks one single time. Contrastingly, in the democratic speeches forms of reluctance were spotted, which directly or indirectly can lead to a lower level of obedience to the restriction measures. Democratic leaders also appeal to the population more emotionally, in contrast to the more descriptive and aggressive autocratic rhetoric. Furthermore, penalizing disobediences was mentioned often by the autocratic leaders and solely once by the democratic ones. Also, whereas 'flatten the transmission curve' is mentioned as the primary goal of the democratic leaders to find a balance between the health impact and economic impact, the autocracies state that totally 'defeating' the virus is the goal, disregarding the economic impact. What seems prevalent is that almost all leaders do not back their described timespan with the factual data. As a result, statements that the crisis is almost over, or just at the start, lack the evidence and appear to be vague estimations or guesses.Show less
