Abstract
Disaster governance in conflict areas is of growing academic concern, but most existing research comprises either single case studies or studies of a variety of country contexts that group all types of conflict together. Based on three case studies, this article offers a middle-ground scenario-based approach, focusing on disaster governance in authoritarian contexts experiencing low-intensity conflict. Low-intensity conflict is characterized by intense political tensions and violence that is more readily expressed in ways other than direct physical harm. Inspired by Olson’s (2000) maxim that disasters are intrinsically political, this article explores the politics of disaster response by asking what is at stake and what happened, unpacking these questions for state, civil society, and international humanitarian actors. Using data from a total of one year of qualitative fieldwork, the article analyzes disaster governance in 2016 drought-ridden Ethiopia, marked by protests and a State of Emergency; 2015 flooded Myanmar, characterized by explosive identity politics; and 2016–2019 drought-ridden Zimbabwe, with its intense socioeconomic and political turbulence. The study’s findings show how framing and power processes in disaster governance—comprising state and non-state actors—largely lean toward the state, with the consequence that political interests, rather than needs assessments, steer who and what will be protected from disaster impact.
Highlights
In 2000, Olson asked, “Why has it been so difficult to gain sustained, systematic attention to the political aspects of disasters?” (2000, p. 265)
Mutual suspicions and accusations were part of the overwhelming majority of the interviews with other types of actors. Regarding their views of the role of the state, the participants generally agreed on the state’s capacity to deal with the disaster, but they doubted the goodwill of the state
In Myanmar, an international organization (IO) representative (#3, November 7, 2018) said that the message the government wished to communicate to its domestic audiences was that the government mostly takes care of the majority Bamar ethnic group but not of Muslim minorities, who were portrayed as an ‘internal threat’ to Myanmar
Summary
In 2000, Olson asked, “Why has it been so difficult to gain sustained, systematic attention to the political aspects of disasters?” (2000, p. 265). In 2000, Olson asked, “Why has it been so difficult to gain sustained, systematic attention to the political aspects of disasters?” The question is still being asked today, with a strong call to study micropolitical dynamics in situations where disaster and conflict overlap (Peters, Holloway, & Peters, 2019; Siddiqi, 2018). Disaster governance—the interplay of different actors reducing and/or responding to disaster risks—is beset by politics. This is especially the case in conflictaffected areas, where the response parameters differ vastly from the disaster response mechanisms specified in, for example, the Sendai Framework for Action (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2015). The existing disaster–conflict literature rarely recognizes the diversity of conflict situations. This article focuses on one type of conflict—lowintensity conflict (LIC) in authoritarian settings
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
