The Role of Elites in Disaster Governance

Introduction

Since the dawn of existence, there have been waves of disasters which have adversely affected humanity. As a result, people in groups and societies have united in developing ways to minimize their exposure to the critical effects of disasters by devising mechanisms of detecting and measuring both pre-disaster and post-disaster impacts and complementing them with response and recovery techniques (Tierney 2012). A variety of approaches may be used but they all converge at one goal which is disaster governance. The minimization of harm caused to people, the environment and property are they key motivating concepts guiding disaster governance and are largely similar in all places in the world (Coppola 2011). However, the ability to carry out disaster governance amongst countries lacks uniformity. The unfortunate reality is that, irrespective of social, economic, political or other regions, different countries in different regions are better capable of controlling the problem than others. Although some nations have more wealth and greater global influence, it naturally remains that none of them is immune from the negative effects caused by disasters (Schumacher & Strobl 2011). The parity that exists among global economies as well as the development of social classes will eventually lead to the inference that no country or group can contain the aftermath of any calamity within its own boarders (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery 2009). Therefore, this study has been developed to critically discuss how disaster governance is predominantly shaped by economic and political elites. This has been looked into through theories related to disaster governance, disaster politics and disaster capitalism.

Historical Overview of Disasters

Disasters have been in existence for a long time entirely being the main purpose of changing global trends and the course of history (Lindell 2013). Of course, they are not interesting events since they have decimated entire civilizations in an instant. Throughout history, natural calamities, diseases and pandemics have largely played a role in sizeable decrease in the global population. For instance, the Bubonic plague pandemic swept an estimated 50% of European population during the 14th century. Theorists and scholars came to the discovery that a variety of great civilizations such as the Mayans, The Old Egyptian Empire and the Minoans collapsed not due to enemy attacks but ultimately due to the effects of tsunamis, floods, famines and earthquakes (Leroy 2013). Over the past decade, various disasters have taken place such as the Cyclone Nargis of 2008 that killed approximately 140,000 people, the Sichuan earthquake in China that left 68,000 killed and the 2010 Haiti earthquake that left an estimated 222,000 killed. As much as these figures may appear anomalous, they are neither unique nor anywhere close to the records held in the larger historical perspective (Cutter et al. 2008). Different control tactics were employed to control these disasters and the countries affected have recovered from these effects at different paces. The rates of recovery depend on the disaster preparedness of that particular region and this is influenced by the number of economic, political and technological elite present (Brody 2007). For instance, China, having more political and economic elite recovered from the earthquake effects at a faster rate compared to Haiti.

Disaster Politics

There are four theories used to explain disasters: a) disasters as an Act of God, b) disasters as an Act of Nature, c) disaster as an Intersection of Society and Nature and d) disaster as an Avoidable Creation and Prism Highlighting Societal Injustice (Drabek 2007). In this context, there is an interplay between the theory of disaster as an intersection of society and nature, disaster as an Avoidable Creation and Prism Highlighting Societal Injustice and disaster politics. To begin with, respectively, the theories suggests that disasters occur as a result of failure in the cultural system of protection of humanity and that the social systems themselves leave some groups of people, societies and individuals prone to environmental hazards than others. Here, the ideas of disasters being of natural causes and an Act of God are given a second priority after the belief that they are man-made in nature (Gaillard & Texier 2010). Let us consider the 2010 - 7.0 magnitude earthquake - that hit Haiti and wrecked the country’s capital, Port-au-Prince, leaving a figure of 222,000 perished as mentioned above. On that same year, on the month that followed, Chile was hit by an earthquake that was 1.8-magnitudes higher and almost 500 times stronger than that of Haiti yet a contradicting figure of 500 people were left dead. The difference between these values left people in wonder (Smith and Flores 2010). To begin with, Chile had developed and implemented strict building codes hence the earthquake did little immediate damage to the country’s infrastructure. In addition, Chile’s then government promptly began seeking both domestic and international relief for supplies such as food and shelter for those who had been affected. Haiti’s government on the other hand was barely tactical both before and after the earthquake. The country’s officials showed less interest in helping the victims who had become homeless and devastated weeks after the earthquake and prioritized their selfish interests. More shocking is that some of the top officials, in return to the demand for food and shelter, demanded for cash bribes and sexual favors (Smith and Flores 2010). Unrests and demonstrations became rampant in the country to the extent that policemen were deployed to disperse the protestors. From the above comparison, disaster politics directly affects disaster governance. It may be impossible for governments to prevent disasters from happening but they have the ability to minimize the criticality of the damages that may be caused and implement immediate recovery methods (Coppola 2011). Haiti’s and Chile’s earthquake incident shows how human beings are responsible for the consequences of their own actions and omissions. It can be deduced that geophysical hazards and conditions are highly dependent on the societal concerns, goals, pressures and risks (exposure) apart from human response and awareness (Drabek 2007). For those who sought something to blame, the social order adopted by Haiti’s government and its officials can be used to explain the consequences of the earthquake, rather than pointing fingers at nature and the Act of God. Greater disaster loses and damages experienced over the past decade have been as a result of the lethal combination between human decisions and the fierce nature (Khan et al. 2008). This is evident by countries located in disaster-prone regions failure to regulate their construction adequately. Politicians may be faced with an option of procuring and utilizing reliable cement in government construction projects but instead choose to award contracts to confidants who are less inclined to utilize safe materials- a decision which heightens disastrous consequences (Perry 2007). China is prone to such disasters which have left hundreds of thousands in their graves (Chan et al. 2014). Chile, United States and Japan are faced with similar earthquakes which have, on the contrary, left fewer dead. Of significance here is the countries’ preparedness towards disasters and the disaster governance system adopted by these countries that have prevented acts of nature from escalating into massive tragedies (Kapucu 2008). China and Iran have not implemented such strict policies.

It is quite tempting to conclude that a country’s economic status plays a role in their disaster governance (Tierney 2012). Of course Japan and the United States are economically healthy to handle disastrous events. As much as a country’s wealth is important, political factors are far more important. Let us consider Peru, a country which had been struck by a 7.9 magnitude four decades ago which left over 66,000 dead but in 2001, less than 150 people were killed after it was hit by a much stronger earthquake. The population density during the first earthquake may have been twice than during the second earthquake and the country’s real per capita income was virtually identical at both points but they did not really matter. What really mattered was the political changes. How? Peru had changed its form of governance from a non-democratic government in 1970 to a democratic government by 2001. On another case, in 2001, a democratic India was hit by an earthquake that left more than 20,000 dead whereas a slightly smaller earthquake in 2005 hit a non-democratic Pakistan – which is a notch wealthier than India – and killed more than 80,000 (Smith and Flores 2010). Just why politics is significant in disaster governance is explained by the knowledge that in a democratic country, politicians have to work to win and maintain the confidence and loyalty they have gained from people (Raungratanaamporn et al. 2014). This does not only create a good public image but also capitalizes on their self-interests such that they assured that they shall be re-elected back to their posts, or even higher positions. Therefore, they are obligated to protect their people against natural calamities by ensuring bureaucracies are controlled by competent personnel and enforcing strict building codes. Statistical reports show that an average of 39 percent of democratic governments are faced with anti-government protests within a two-year time frame.

Disaster Capitalism

Another way in which the economic and political elite control disaster governance is by disaster capitalism. It would be hard for the government and other interested parties to enforce and implement certain policies under normal circumstances since, as a consequence, the public may not be in agreement with the policies thus leading to unrest (Klein 2007). However, nature is uncontrollable and when natural disasters happen, drastic changes are bound to occur. For instance, great floods, hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis could happen and there will be a group of people which will be completely devastated by the natural event – usually the lower impoverished class. Yet, as others suffer, another group or class of people use the calamity as an opportunity to change certain policies or develop certain business agreements which will benefit them after all (Owen 2011). At such a point, the public is in no good position to retaliate or protest the changes since their attention has been swayed in a different direction to the extent that it they hardly notice what is going on (Klein 2007). Well, this is the reality that some countries face during such times – disaster capitalism. As the name suggests, it is a practice whereby a regime or government takes advantage of major disasters to adopt and implement liberal and economic policies which the public is less likely to accept under normal grounds. Rescue business is one example of disaster capitalism. This is where private enterprises are formed with the commitment to rescue its customers from dangerous places (Hallegatte & Przyluski 2010). The ethics revolving around the business is quite complicated. Anybody living in a disaster stricken environment would want to be saved immediately since these organizations have proven to be more responsive, more efficient and more equipped than government rescue teams. However, on a different perspective, the rescue business has interests which are inclined towards profit maximization rather than humanitarian benefits (Geale 2012). In Nepal, thousands of local residents perished in the earthquake that struck on April because they were not as lucky as the foreigners who had Global Rescue membership. The annual membership for Global Rescue costs an estimated $700 and during the Nepal earthquake the company’s helicopters limited helicopters were fought for by foreigners while the Nepalese had no option but to wait longer for the relief services which had been overwhelmed (Loewenstein 2015). Global Rescue illustrates disaster capitalism and it is currently a thriving business which has expanded by opening offices in Thailand, Pakistan among other countries. Profiteering is not the only driving factor behind the rescue business since the business has gone a step further to implementing the rule to mining, war and immigration. Further disaster capitalistic profits are being made by Serco, a private outsourcing company in Britain, which takes advantage of the refugee crisis in Syria and Libya to fund and bully politicians by guaranteeing an extension to their bottom line. In Haiti, during the 2010 earthquake, as mentioned above, government officials took advantage of the situation to fish out money bribes and sexual favors from the public so as to reciprocate this with shelter and food.

Another company that benefits on the existence of crises is the British multinational G4S which has managed to proceed with its operations despite being faced with a variety of scandals in the past decade. G4S, even with the current refugee crisis in Europe, continues to staff its detention centers and protection of Western travelers. The company is unwilling to spend more on training its employees and as a result, its employees, who are underpaid, are left prone to abuse and accidents in South Africa and South Sudan. The healthcare system in Greece, after going through years of economic crisis, has been keeping the country’s citizens sick and without the ability to acquire vital medical facilities. Contrarily, the European Union insists on mass privatization of facilities such as airports and water companies which leaves the Greek people with little help while enriching the outsourcers in the country (Loewenstein 2015). Other disaster capitalistic incidents according to Naomi Klein include: the passing of a new law which allowed Shell and BP to claim Iraq’s oil reserves while the country underwent a civil war, the auctioning off of the pristine beaches to tourist resorts after the South East Asian coasts are hit by a tsunami and the closing down of public hospitals and public housing after the scattering of the New Orleans residents by Hurricane Katrina among others (Klein 2007). Disaster capitalism poses a challenge to disaster governance since it is only the privileged few who get to benefit from it while the desperate pleas of the remaining majority are ignored (Geale 2012). What makes it difficult to control such businesses is the ambiguity which surrounds them since some of them are backed by governments and almost no action has been taken to put those who are engaged in the business accountable.

Issues to be addressed by economic and political elites in disaster governance

Since disaster governance is greatly influenced by the decisions made and policies passed by the economic and political elite, they could play a positive role in addressing critical matters related to the subject in discussion. They could do so through ways discussed as follows.

Making Warning Signals Clear and Concise To the Masses

The political and economic elite should persuade government agencies which have been delegated the duties of generating and disseminating data and information related to typhoons, storms, volcanic eruptions among other natural disasters using messages, languages and words recognized and understood by people of different races and linguistic backgrounds. This can be done to the extent of using sign languages, illustrations and drawings among other tools relevant for the physically challenged and illiterate individuals (Chou & Chen 2013).

Building and Construction Material

Government officials are entrusted with the responsibilities of procuring building materials for construction projects. It is therefore within their integrity to ensure the deployment of safe materials and the development of building codes which are enforced with follow-ups to ensure that those engaged in construction activities comply (Chamlee-Wright & Storr 2010). They should advice people living in disaster prone regions to build disaster proof houses reinforced with strong materials which are capable of mitigating subsequent disasters of higher magnitudes. Although the cost of the materials may be high, a cost-benefit analysis can be provided to the public clarifying the trade-offs of adopting better construction techniques (Ahmed 2013).

Minimizing Politics in Disaster Governance

Politics is a dirty game and once politics is associated with disaster governance, an institution which involves saving lives of those whom are endangered or have been affected by natural calamities will result in lack of progress (Kamolvej 2010). Therefore, disaster governance ministries should be developed on the basis that they remain autonomous, self-progressive and self-reliance in order to speed up recovery procedures. Disaster governance should be freed from the strife and hurry brought about by politics for effectiveness (Pelling & Dill 2010).

Prioritize recovery and exhumation of bodies

The aftermath of natural disasters results in the disorientation of building structures usually burying people in between the crumbled concrete blocks. The elite community, while valuing and expressing dignity to the lost ones, should ensure prompt retrieval, recovery and exhumation of bodies. This should be followed proper identification and ensuring that all dead bodies are accounted for. Benefits accrued to this act is that there will be minimal health issues amongst survivors and residents as a result of stench smell and decaying bodies (Kusumasari et al. 2010).

Adopting education, technology and governance

The educational, technological and governance framework mutually complement and reinforce disaster governance practices. The economic elite should recognize this and should encourage governments to sharpen their policy making and decision making processes with regards to disaster governance. In addition, through governance, central governments, irrespective of their nature should play a vigilant role in the implementation and promulgation of laws and policies related to disaster governance (Baas 2006). Disaster governance should be integrated into educational curriculums through exercises and drills so that people can learn how to react during the occurrence of a specific natural disaster while providing disaster and emergency tips (van Westen 2000). Information technology experts, volcanologists, meteorologists and computer scientists should participate in developing and designing the latest trends for early detection and prevention, adaptation and mitigation mechanisms (Marincioni 2007).

Conclusion

To conclude, the disaster governance institutions have been developed with a goal to ensure that detection, prevention and recovery mechanisms are applied while minimizing the harm caused by natural disasters. However, the political and economic elite seem to have significant influence in disaster governance, meaning that they have the capability of shifting the results to suit their desired interests. This has been showcased by disaster capitalism where companies are best characterized by their tendency to take advantage of the existence of a natural calamity to salvage as much as they can and redesigning what is left in the public sphere into corporate designed political and economic structures before the disaster victims regroup and gather the ability to claim what originally belonged to them. Disaster politics, on the other hand shows the parity between different forms of government and leads to the realization that democratic governments are far more effective in disaster preparedness and governance. The government officials ought to express their credibility and competence in office especially in disaster governance in order to ensure the success of the institution.

References

Ahmed, Z., (2013). Disaster risks and disaster management policies and practices in Pakistan: critical analysis of Disaster Management Act 2010 of Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 4, pp.15–20.

Baas, S., (2006). The role of local institutions in reducing vulnerability to recurrent natural disasters and in sustainable livelihoods development . Philippines: Natural Resources Management and Environment Department

Chamlee-Wright, E. & Storr, V.H., (2010). Expectations of government’s response to disaster. Public Choice, 144(1), pp.253–274.

Chan, E. Kim, J. Lin, C. Cheung, E. & Lee, P. (2014). Is previous disaster experience a good predictor for disaster preparedness in extreme poverty households in remote muslim minority based community in China? Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 16(3), pp.466–472.

Coppola, D.P., (2011). Introduction to International Disaster Management. UK: Butterworth-Heinemann

Cutter, S.L. Barnes, L. Berry, M. Burton, C. Evans, E. Tate, E. & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), p598–606.

Drabek, T.E., (2007). Sociology, Disasters and Emergency Management: History, Contributions, and Future Agenda. Disciplines, Disasters and Emergency Management: The Convergence and Divergence of Concepts, Issues and Trends in the Research Literature, (anticipated 2005), pp.61–74.

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, (2009). Disaster Risk Management Programs for Priority Countries,

Kamolvej, T., (2010). Disaster Policy and Politics: Emergency Management and Homeland Security. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 12(1), pp.215–216.

Khan, H., Vasilescu, L. & Khan, A., (2008). Disaster management cycle - a theoretical approach. Management & Marketing - Craiova, (1), p43–50.

Kusumasari, B., Alam, Q. & Siddiqui, K., (2010). Resource capability for local government in managing disaster. Disaster Prevention and Management, 19(4), p438–451

Leroy, S.A.G., (2013). Natural Hazards, Landscapes, and Civilizations. In Treatise on Geomorphology. pp. 190–203.

Marincioni, F., (2007). Information technologies and the sharing of disaster knowledge: The critical role of professional culture. Disasters, 31(4), pp.459–476.

Owen, G., (2011). After the flood: Disaster capitalism and the symbolic restructuring of intellectual space. Culture and Organization, 17(February 2012), pp.123–137.

Pelling, M. & Dill, K., (2010). Disaster politics: tipping points for change in the adaptation of sociopolitical regimes. Progress in Human Geography, 34(1), pp.21–37.

Raungratanaamporn, I. Pakdeeburee, P. Kamiko, A. & Denpaiboon, C. (2014). Government-communities Collaboration in Disaster Management Activity: Investigation in the Current Flood Disaster Management Policy in Thailand. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 20, pp.658–667.

Schumacher, I. & Strobl, E., (2011). Economic development and losses due to natural disasters: The role of hazard exposure. Ecological Economics, 72, pp.97–105.

Tierney, K., (2012). Disaster Governance: Social, Political, and Economic Dimensions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), pp.341–363.

Van Westen, C., (2000). Remote Sensing for Natural Disaster Management. In International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. pp. 1609–1617.