While there are some who disagree, Natural Disasters are not likely to be driven by politics. However, they are also not immune from politics. It is far from the truth. Human actions have a direct impact on the mitigation, prevention, and recovery of natural disasters.
The natural event itself, e.g. the earthquake, is called the’shock’. The earthquake. The ‘aftershock” comes later. The Christchurch City Council, the Christchurch Earthquake Authority, the Christchurch City Council and the Government of the day, all equate to the effect of the aftershock’ on the population. This is far from the entire event. It also includes shocking post-disaster events such as delayed insurance payments, top-down autoritarian decisions and ineptitude by professional bodies. There is even evidence of corruption in the city after the earthquake.
While governments are supposed care about the welfare of their citizens they also have an interest to maximize government income. Although governments spend money on preventative and palliative actions to lessen the effects of a possible natural shock, governments also use natural disasters as a political tool to redistribute power. For example, disaster spending is favoured in areas that are politically aligned to the party in power. In dire circumstances, rapacious governments have a greater ability to steal more and hide it. You can use disasters as a blunt tool to reward or target populations, and to enrich the government and the corporate classes’.
It is also interesting to note that the time of crisis can make it more difficult for people to get information about incumbent or current politicians, their governance styles and outcomes. Because disaster creates a highly informative environment in which voters can debate and experience the merits and performance of those in power, whether they are a Prime Minister or City Council. These high-information environments are where voters can learn enough to make an informed decision about whether to replace their political incumbents.
Certain incumbents in Christchurch, for example, are responsible for rebuilding the city’s infrastructure and restoring order to the affected areas. Normal times are not a great time to know how the incumbent is doing. But during an earthquake or hurricane, voters learn much more about the incumbent’s job and who they really are. Information about the incumbent’s performance can be enough to change a voter’s initial decision to support them. The likelihood that they are re-elected by the people in the affected areas is therefore high. The truth is that voters often don’t understand the relationships between the actions of incumbent politicians and their own pain or pleasure. To ensure that the population outside of the affected area is not exposed to their manipulations, the government relies on national media disinterest or control.
Research shows that educated voters are more rational than those who are not. In fact, incumbents with natural disasters have lower re-election rates. This mechanism is informational. A rational voter votes retrospectively – i.e. A rational voter votes retrospectively – i.e., based on the incumbent’s past performance. However, this is only because the past performance can be used to predict future performance.
A country’s ability to prepare for disasters depends on its willingness and ability to ensure that it has the confidence and capability to oversee and mandate levels of fairness and decency, as well as the efficiency of reconstruction. Christchurch City’s dilemmas require that we balance rebuilding faster, building cheaper, rebuilding safely, and rebuilding better. To achieve the desired ends, the government will need to address many elements of private and local enterprises that have placed profits above community interests. This includes having important conversations with insurance providers to resolve claims settlement stalemates and other dubious practices used to reduce the cost of valid claims. These are all examples of failures by central government to take responsibility for regulation and enforcement in long-term planning. This is likely due to an entrenched culture that favors corruption and the pursuits of occluded agendas. Markets do not have an inherent moral character, therefore it is the government’s responsibility to determine how they should be managed.
Political implications are profound when a disaster is declared a “national emergency”. As the community moves through the phases of recovery and reconstruction, it becomes almost inevitable that further politicization will occur. While the immediate response of any government should be predictable, it is not impossible to imagine the aftermath. This is because the situation and political values of the day make the aftermath highly vulnerable to political agendas and opportunities. In a recovery phase, it is crucial to determine how a Government views its political mandate or gives the opportunity to define it.
Markets do not have an inherent moral character, so it is up to the government to decide how they should be managed. Markets must be managed ‘under emergency’ after major disasters to ensure they work for the benefit and recovery of most citizens. Non-interference in politics only amplifies the voices of the wealthy corporations and does not protect ordinary citizens from corporate abuse. As money speaks in politics, so does it in the marketplace. A system of recovery must be governed by rules and regulations that operate within a legal framework. The government is responsible for setting and enforcing the rules in a modern economy. This is particularly true in cases of major disasters where the government decides to participate in the recovery process. Without genuine government support, it is unlikely that a population will be able to recover fully from the disaster. The Christchurch recovery has been marked by political decisions favoring the corporate and government stakeholders, the insurance industry and construction industry. Slow, painful recovery has been caused by the policy of non-interference on the market. This approach has had devastating and visible consequences for the affected population.
The Insurance Aftershock: The Christchurch Fiasco Post–Earthquakes 2010,-2016. See [http://sarahalicemiles.com/] This is a book about the management of catastrophe at a National level.
After the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010 and 2012 in New Zealand, the author had the rare opportunity to study the effectiveness of national government funding and management of disasters on a national level. These findings are both shocking and troubling.
This book is not about idealistic sociological concepts. It’s a detailed account of real administrative failures and financial risk-taking by the Government, along with corporate malfeasance. Every policy-maker, politician and official from the Treasury, as well as economists, should read it.
This book reveals the failings and fallacies in current disaster management strategies. Not only are they costly, but also how to manage the recovery phase.
The author examines the international experience of disaster from the perspective of funding strategies and government policies. She identifies a fundamental conflict between corporatism, and the need to quickly recover the economic, business and public interests. She also discusses tensions between the National and Local government goals and the voiceless local population. She also comments on the ineffectiveness of Civil Law and its associated remedies as protection against corporate breach-of contract and bad-faith, both here and abroad.
