Thread by @DisastersRadix

27. RADIXers, for the last time this is @akgungor_c. So, when a disaster happens, society looks for #leadership and an efficient #response. While issues related to #crisismanagement & response usually seem to be the primary reason for public outrage in the first moments,

28...it doesn’t take long for a louder contestation to emerge, this one being about causes and responsibilities: How it happened; why it happened;
what could have been done in order to prevent it, and, if it wasn’t prevented, then who is responsible?

29. Clearly, #catastrophe is a legitimacy test for the political elite, as it is for the public administration. Leaders certainly prefer avoiding such debates about their presumed irresponsibility, indifference, or lethargy but for many others, starting with victims & journalists

30...this is precisely the time when these discussions should and can be opened. This is where what Stone calls “causal stories” come into play: Actors elaborate their own #interpretation of the situation through which they attribute cause, blame, and responsibility.

31. For the incumbent elite, containing the debate at this moment and making prevail his own version of what happened, is a vital issue.

32. On the other hand, its “adversaries” (a wide range of formal and informal social groups which may include opposition parties, business interests, media, NGOs, and of course, disaster victims) intend to dominate also the controversy to reach their aims.

33. And this “blame game” is hardly limited to the immediate situation: the #crisis -quoting Lagadec- “brings out all the shortcomings and flaws we considered as absorbed by the past.” In fact, the scope of the #public #controversy may very well go beyond the catastrophe itself.

34. Olson states that “the struggle of regaining the privilege of supervision over political agenda or possessing new privileges” constitutes one of the elements of “disaster politics”, while the other element is politically reconstructing the truth.

35. Clearly, studying how the post-catastrophe controversies unfold, what is told by whom, how, and why, reveals, first of all, a great deal about the political dynamics, and the major sociopolitical issues in that society.

36. One particular analysis I enjoy is to look at the post-disaster context to see where society stands between authoritarianism and democracy, by observing how the “blame game” is “regulated”. What is allowed to be done? What is allowed to be said? And, most importantly…

37... did the “clash of narratives” have any consequences? Any legal case? Any resignation? Protests? New actors? New dynamics? Did the post-catastrophe controversies have any impact on society? If so, were these durable? Why/why not?

38. I’ll end this series with a couple of references (oldies but goodies) for those who might be interested: “The Politics of Crisis Management” by Arjen Boin; “Disaster Management and Civil Society” by Tim Jacoby and Alpay Ozerdem; “What is a Disaster” by Enrico Quarantelli (ed)

39. “The Construction of Social Reality” by John Searl; “Social Movements and Civil Society : The Mexico City 1985 Earthquake Victim Movement” by Ligia Tavera Fenellosa; “Towards a Politics of Disaster: Losses, Values, Agendas and Blame” by Richard Olson (art. published in IJMED)

40. ...and “Causal Stories and the Formation of Political Agenda” by Deborah Stone (art. published in Political Science Quarterly). Thanks for reading. You can always reach me with your questions. Take care 👋