Tue 13 May 2008
Democracy, Governance and Disasters
Posted by AsifY under Crisis Management , Democracy , Natural Disaster , News and events , South AsiaMy feeling is that Rezwan bhai has hit the nail on the head. He has hinted at a link between democracy and disaster response/management in the case of Cyclone Nargis. Democracies thrive in open societies with free flow of information. A person’s right to know and people’s right to speak are fundamental to democracies. While some have tried to portray this flow of information and the different media through which they flow as “wastes of time”/ “distractions” that keep people from going about their daily lives, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire situation.
From his blog post, we learn that Nargis was a category-3 storm, whereas SIDR was a category-4. Question to readers: what are other physical factors that make a cyclone more or less devastating? I am assuming that the topography of the land also plays a part in how devastating a cyclone is, and would love to hear from readers about the differences in the two cases.
The flow of information is precisely what keeps people functioning in their daily lives.
When they don’t get information – e.g. when the media is not free – that is when their lives are hampered and made less bearable.
That is what – among other things, I stress – is what we saw unfold so tragically in Burma.
The free flow of information is what ensures good governance. At this point in time, we are not sure if the people of Burma were warned about the disaster or not. It is pretty unlikely we will be any surer in the future. Worse, the Burmese people themselves will not know if their own countrymen were warned or not. Without such knowledge, there are no demands on their government to improve governance.
Contrast this with the Bush Administration’s worst governance failure inside America, the response to Katrina. First up, note that in a society that is used to free flows of information, no one doubted whether the people were warned or not. With media completely privatized in America, the people have multiple channels to know. The Burmese junta with its monopoly on the media might be envying the Bush Administration right about now.
Or maybe not. Because it also means that there is no Anderson Cooper questioning their governance with extreme disgust, no Spike Lee making documentaries about the lovely New Orleans and no black community leaders rebuking America’s inherent racism on screen. Without the media enabling people to criticize government performance, you do not get good governance. As we all know now, the head of FEMA resigned and there are still questions lingering over the rest of the Bush Administration’s handling of this disaster.
Good luck finding a similar dynamic in Burma.
I am not an utopian and I do not think that democracy is a magic bullet. If we have democracy tomorrow, prices would not be down. If we have democracy tomorrow, governance would still be bad. But there will always be the hope that we can fix things, that people can be made accountable.
If Burma had democracy tomorrow, maybe 22,000 (and counting) would still have died tragically. I am arguing though that when the next storm comes, one thing will be certain: Burma will not have learnt anything from this and thousands will suffer again, if the military junta does not step down in the intervening time.
Let this be a warning to us Bangladeshis. The system in place for SIDR worked because it was part of the democratic norm to keep people informed and let information flow without impediments. That it worked under the current military regime can be attributed to systemic inertia. The only way to ensure that the reconstruction phase of the system is working is through open flow of information. Somehow, my mind remains uneasy on this score.
The only way to improve this system is to embrace those norms even closer.
The way to dismantle this system is through promoting the kind of secrecy, censorship, opaque government and intolerance to criticism that this government has displayed on numerous occasions.
Which way do you want to go?
Only after I finished writing this piece did I notice Mahtab Haider’s excellent piece on the same topic in Friday’s New Age. Well worth the read, makes the same points as Rezwan bhai.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Interesting observation, but the KEY word is functionality. If a govt can handle people’s needs during NORMAL times (food, water, power, transport, housing and anti-corruption) THEN ONLY it can handle disasters fully.
Even India has famines, failures and flops in their system. And even USA had a dysfunctional management after hurricane Katrina. So, “democracy” is not the automatic answer. And ANY odd civilian govt, with a dysfunctional parliament and accountability will not be the answer either.
I believe the answer is - the system of governance must be FUNCTIONAL (whether civilian, dictatorial whetever) in order to manage normal, abnormal and disaster situations properly.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:37 am
@ Asif S:
“I am not an utopian …. can be made accountable.”
Nicely put. Indeed, democracy will not solve all our problems. Even worse– if it is the top down kind of superimposed democracy which some of our civil society gurus are professing now-a-days, then God help us!
Between the lines, you seem to have nailed one of the fundamental flaws in our national psyche. As a nation, I feel, our expectations from “democracy” had always been very unrealistic. Frustratingly, this flaw appears to serve as the backdrop in most of our public/political discourses–making us impatient as a nation, prone to quick disappointment and eventually desperate and destructive. These tendencies have clouded judgment of even the most enlightened members of our civil society, whose destructive choices are now well-chronicled.
On the other point–both your and Rezwan bhai’s post seem to underlie the broad premise of Amartya Sen’s “famine–free media link.” In that context, taking cue from your “magic bullet” point, perhaps we can agree that “information” will not perform miracles either, but it is the only ally for us the ordinary people.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:10 am
KGazi, when did independent India have a famine?
Incidental Blogger, is it really the case that ‘as a nation’ we have an expectations problem? There is definitely an expectations problem among many in the chattering classes - the blogosphere, Op Ed columnists in the major newspapers, people who read those Op Eds, TV talking heads, people who watch them at late night. But the nation is much more than the chattering classes. There are many, many more people who don’t read blogs or Daily Star Op Ed columns or watch Ekushey Raat.
Do those people suffer from this expectations problem?
I am not arguing that they don’t. I certainly don’t have evidence that the masses don’t have an expectations problem. As much as I can tell from the blue collar Bangladeshis - taxi drivers, cleaners, factory workers, restaurant chefs, cornershop owners, service station operators - in the west, they have very strong political views, but their expectations are lot more realistic. But I could very well be wrong. And blue collar migrant workers in the west may not be any more representative than you or me of the people back home.
It is a digression from the current thread, but perhaps we should think about the fact that we, the chattering classes, may not represent the ‘national psyche’ at all.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
IB,
Just to pre-empt any misunderstandings, the author of this piece is not Asif Saleh bhai.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
@ Jyoti # 3:
I was merely referring to the perceived disappointments of people which I find disappointing. Perhaps it is unfair to take it out on the rest of the nation. It was a general assertion, not meant to pass any methodological test. But I do see your point and must thank you for raising it. I agree with your observation about the (real) public outside the “chattering class.” I have to admit - many a times - I found myself forced to question/audit my own expectations after listening to their off-hand but incisive remarks. To be frank, I am struggling to figure out this “expectation” thing myself. For example: Is there really any such thing as ‘national expectation’ to speak of its flaws? Is it something that is expected to grow on its own as the “solemn expression of people’s will” or something that needs to be manufactured/manipulated or even nurtured? Or is it both, symbiotically linked to one another? Is it a leadership issue with someone standing before millions, inspiring them by saying–”ebarer shongram muktir shongram” or something as “I had a dream” ? I don’t know. [Sorry Asif, for veering off topic].
@ Asif Y:
I am not sure if I am reading it right where you wrote : “The only way to improve this system is to embrace those norms even closer. The way to dismantle this system is through promoting the kind of secrecy, censorship, opaque government and intolerance to criticism that this government has displayed on numerous occasions.”
–Which system are you proposing to dismantle?
–What norms you are referring to?
Sorry, the answers are probably obvious but I am somehow missing them.
@ DS # 4:
That really is an “oops” point! Thank you. [note to self: don't post anything after 2am]
May 14th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Jyoti, #3- “when did independent India have a famine?”
———-
Referring to local famines in India, not nationwide ones, there is one going on right now in NE India. This had also been spreading to CHT in Bangladesh.
http://www.gulfnews.com/world/India/10198174.html
May 17th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Sorry for the confusion IB. Clearly I have an online identity crisis at the moment. Tangled webs…
to answer questions from #5,
I am not proposing to dismantle any system. The system I’m referring to is the disaster management system. Ease of information flow is a key component of that system. So, I am saying that it MIGHT get dismantled if a culture of secrecy pervades our entire political system. Apologies, should have phrased that better.
Norms I am referring to include (not exhaustive by any means): the right of anyone to speak against anyone without the fear of repercussions, the right of journalists to report any news they deem newsworthy, the right of people to enquire and to expect from their government solid answers as to what the government is doing about any issue etc.