The central and provincial government’s inept performance in dealing with the recent disastrous events in the country not only reflects prevarication and urban policy failure but at the same time, underscores the need for an operational local governance system. A truly working local body can act as a catalyst in extending meaningful governance to the grassroots and likewise liaise disaster management activities better.
Disaster need not necessarily be an event of a scale of a tsunami. Anything that causes serious disruption in an otherwise functioning society resulting in substantial losses can be deemed as a disaster, so much so that it cannot be dealt with existing set of resources.
The Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management states that crises ‘scrambles plans, interrupt continuities and brutally paralyze normal government operations and humans lives.’ Therefore, States must take preemptive measures to optimally deal with situation like we have at hand. The event is not a climatic aberration since Pakistan is dearly a victim of climate change. But, from a policy perspective, it has conspicuously put belying political claims of development to tatters, of which the megacity of Karachi is an apt example.
Therefore, given the vulnerability to such catastrophic events, it is essential that governing bodies adopt strategic risk reduction measures to mitigate the impact of disasters and possibly avoid them in future.
The role of local governments in disaster management is not a matter recondite. Perhaps it is one which holds the key to improved public service delivery – at least in theory. If we hold all good governance practices as given, a working local government system in Pakistan can surely revolutionize governance and leave inexorable problems well-rested.
The increased frequency and severity of disasters is manifest. Population explosion, unplanned urbanization and climate change are some reasons relevant to Pakistan which makes it ever more susceptible to crises. To be better equipped to deal with extraordinary emergency situations, we need to design robust preemptive disaster measures and introduce proactive policy culture at each and every level of the State network.
Where policies may be enunciated at the Center, part of the agenda and its implementation can be done by local government authorities. In emergency situations, this can guarantee tangible relief especially where it is critically needed.
Thus, it is not inapt to maintain that local governing bodies have the potential to systematize governance processes and bring about relief operations efficaciously in times of crises. This reduces chances of implementational mismanagement and to some extent misappropriation of funds due to immediacy and thereafter keener oversight.
It is noteworthy that disaster management and crises response are multi-actor tasks which cannot be wholly dealt with by local governments alone. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that local government can act as a collective point of action and the strategic center for disaster mitigation and relief work thus acting as a focal unit for the coordination of the federal and the provincial governments and, disaster management authorities.
This goes without saying that local governments are also an important actor when it comes to providing up-to-date, real time information that allows for effective and quick decisions – which are especially needed in times of disaster. It is especially significant since disaster management in the country has mostly been ‘reactive’ in nature rather than anticipatory. The lack of planning and preparation inevitably mars action and efficacy, the effect of which is compounded by the administrative absence of local authorities. This acts as a major obstacle for the entrenchment of disaster resilience in our (vulnerable) societies.
Furthermore, the reactive policies and relief aid are unsustainable – especially in the long run – and act as an extra socioeconomic cost. There are several reasons for this: the monetary disbursement can be no compensation for the mental trauma of victims, the money could be utilized in advance to provide vulnerable communities better standard of living and disaster-resilient infrastructure in the first place, monetary aid may also open up newer avenues of venality which itself is a problem and, with the ravaging scale of disaster, innovative ways are needed to predict and deal with them. These are some of the reasons why proactive disaster management policies are desirable.
Hence, it is obvious that what we as a society have had to bear recently is an unforgivable policy-failure, the culpability of which falls on negligent State practice. A more organized and well-networked State apparatus could result in better, if not best, disaster management.
Here we can see why organizationally and administratively local governing bodies are helpful.
Local governments are usually responsible to perform critical development functions – from urban planning to social services to disaster management. Therefore, they should be conceived of as foundational in building resilient cities and robust governance infrastructure. This requires some meaningful decentralization to take place which will galvanize local bodies to prompt action.
Transfer of authority to the local level is therefore essential to allow these bodies to strengthen institutional outlook and build capacity. Besides, it is easier for local authorities to gather requisite social capital, summon community participation and induce civic ownership of the local management and programs. This results in locally relevant, context driven policies which can developmentally uplift and prepare communities for unforeseen events.
Moreover, diffusion of authority is administratively efficient as local bodies would not need to wait for a strategic plan from the Center to take action. Furthermore, decentralization is also time-savvy in this context as local State managers tend to be better connected with the community thus better knowing of the vulnerabilities of their respective jurisdictions.
Summarily, local authorities can align local concerns with government policies and priorities, and translate the latter to the former’s needs – especially to induce communitarian resolve and engender resilience.
The increased frequency and severity of disasters is manifest. Population explosion, unplanned urbanization and climate change are some reasons relevant to Pakistan which makes it ever more susceptible to crises. To be better equipped to deal with extraordinary emergency situations, we need to design robust preemptive disaster measures and introduce proactive policy culture at each and every level of the State network. All of this necessitates the institutionalization of effective local bodies which if meaningfully operationalized can truly unleash sustainable progress and development through and through for Pakistan.
