Emergency Management Disasters Are Political Occurrences; They

Emergency Management

Disasters are political occurrences; they can either destroy or glorify politicians. The spectacular temperament of disasters calls for the involvement of these chief executives and they test their leadership merits. How politicians control these rare occurrences can frame how their whole term in office receive judgments. During his last White House Press Conference, President George W. Bush was asked about the mistake he made during his reign, and among his regrets was the federal response to Hurricane Katrina (Reeves, 2011). Even though he never campaigned on his capacities to control natural disasters, Hurricane Katrina formed part of his legacy. To an impacted voter, the policy of disaster is potential even more significant than choices regarding the economy, education or war. As a result, disaster management holds a great impact on politicians because people judge them from the manner in which they respond and mitigate disasters. This paper therefore evaluates the current state of emergency management field about political influence besides assessing how disaster policy might be more proactive. The paper also assesses Hurricane Katrina, which took place in 2005 in the U.S. And underlines the greatest obstacles to a more proactive evolution of emergency management.

Introduction

Disasters are evident in the contemporary world and they form part of the reality of living. Even with considerable efforts to control nature, people constantly face natural hazards. Over the last decade, the economic and social disaster costs in the United States and elsewhere in the world have developed greatly. According to Haddow, Bullock & Coppola (2010), the costs of disasters in the U.S. were approximately 355 billion dollars between 2000 and 2008. Economic losses and death caused by natural disasters increased considerably in 2008 when 235,816 persons died from natural disasters and 211 million people affected by these disasters. However, all disasters hold a political influence because these disasters affect people and involve public policy. The manner in which a country mitigates, respond, prepare and recover from calamities depends on the creation, maintenance and implementation of disaster management policy.

Politics is the procedure through which public policy is established and implemented. Failure in implementation of public policy on disaster management instigates political debates, which consequently form the basis of political campaigns. Moreover, disasters calls for public interest and politician have to react accordingly to public scrutiny and interests. The 9/11 and Oklahoma events were political and required political decisions to respond to these events. However, the 9/11 terrorist attack instigated dramatic changes in United States emergency management (Haddow, Bullock & Coppola, 2010). These attacks and the following anthrax scare in October 2001 acted as a driving force towards reexamination of the country's emergency system that entails priorities, practices and funding. While the disasters linked to Hurricanes Rita and Katrina partially changed the course of emergency management, the shifts made after the 9/11 terrorist attack are ongoing.

The Current State of Emergency Management Field

Before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Nunn-Lugar legislation offered the principal power and direction for domestic federal preparedness actions for terrorism. Numerous agencies, such as FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), DOJ ( Department of Justice, HHS ( Department of Health and Human Resources), DOD ( Department of Defense and the National Guard were all engaged, and were fighting for leadership of the issue of terrorism (Haddow, Bullock & Coppola, 2010). There were several trials at coordination, but agencies greatly pursued their set agendas. The greatest disparity among the involved agencies was the available funding level where DOJ and DOD took control of most funds. Local and state governments were in confusion and they felt unprepared. They complained about the requirement to acknowledge their needs and vulnerability when disasters occur. The events following the 9/11 attack confirmed the concerns of the local and state government and illustrated the call for shifts in the federal perspective to terrorism (Garrett, Thomas & Russell, 2003). The shifts fall under five categories, which include:

First responder activities and protocols

Preparing for terrorist actions

Financing war on terrorism

Creation of Department of Homeland Security

The change in direction of the country system of emergency management on war against terrorism

Since the dreadful assail of 9/11, the United States endeavors to be successful over cultural melancholy via institutional rectification (Haddow, Bullock & Coppola, 2010). The institutional rectification instigates substantial reorganization of the federal government by reexamining the direction of the country's intelligence population. This prompted a transformed necessitate for domestic protection leading to the establishment of Department of Homeland Security. In the absence of disaster incidences, the field of emergency management falls low on scores of political agendas. Governments function on restrained budgets, making it difficult to for underprivileged nations' leaders to select mitigation for disasters that may never take place in the course of their tenure over projects capable of generation, instant recognition and gratification. The United Nations identified augmented political devotion to emergency management (Reeves, 2011). Public officials should be convinced of the increased benefits of detailed emergency management, including how much more cost-effective benefits mitigation and preparation efforts are in comparative with disaster response and recovery.

Disasters in the real world do not occur in a vacuum. Scores of disaster management planning efforts approach each hazard as if it will take place in the absence of all other hazards. Unfortunately, it is common for two or more disasters to occur concurrently or in succession leading to compound emergency. Following the 9/11 events, the Department of Homeland Security was established and it made FEMA to lose its status an independent agency (Garrett, Thomas & Russell, 2003). In most of states, governors introduced new homeland security organizations and in few cases, the state emergency management operation was subsumed into these organizations. Most emergency management organizations failed to receive an actual rise in funds and they lost political influence and authority (Haddow, Bullock & Coppola, 2010). The principal mission of homeland security is to block prospective terrorism acts. However, these aspects call for inclusion and prominence of law enforcement and intelligence functions.

Because of the national preoccupation with the incidences of 9/11 terrorist attacks, all localities and states were compelled to create preparedness and plans for terrorism as their greatest priority. The massive failures of FEMA in the course of response and recovery from Hurricane Katrina and subsequent disasters like Hurricane Ike and Rita made politicians and the public to focus on the issue of natural hazards (Garrett, Thomas & Russell, 2003). They put into task the responsibility of the federal government in assisting people in the aftermath of natural disasters. The absence of proficient federal response and the call to enhance preparedness for catastrophic disasters became a heated debate in Bush administration. While the recovery from Hurricane Katrina continued to fade away, FEMA concentrated its endeavors on planning for the next catastrophic disasters. Federal preparedness planning needs and conformity with federal processes were imposed on local and state governments as a requirement for constant receipt of federal funding.

The September 2001 terrorist attack and the Hurricane Katrina are two examples that highlight the political influence in the state of emergency management field in the United States. From the two major disasters in the history of America, it is evident that disasters and their subsequent results hold a great potential to influence the political atmosphere of state, nation or a community. Such disasters alter the perceptions of people regarding the concern and ability of political players (Gasper & Reeves, 2011). Disasters cause politicians to become more responsive to criticism of relief and response efforts. People can link instances where political landscapes and futures are altered through a calamity and the consequent leadership. The 9/11 attacks is the most striking event that made a President in the United States elected through the barest of voter mass and lost the accepted vote due weak leadership skills. However, President George W. Bush who handled the impacts of the 9/11 attacks is viewed as masterful and he enjoyed the most accepted presidencies in the contemporary world (Gasper & Reeves, 2011). This shows that there is a close relationship between politics and disasters in the United States. Although FEMA lost its political influence, key functions and resources during the Bush Administration, politics influenced creation of other urgencies such Home Land security and DHS. Moreover, a disaster is declared by the president notwithstanding that declaring a calamity should be above politics and precise.

Recent U.S. Disaster: Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Katrina is one of the most critical natural disasters that hit the United States after the deadly 9/11 attack (Palser, 2007). The Hurricane Katrina confirmed what NRP would view as a deep-seated catastrophe. Hurricane Katrina inflicted destruction across large area leading to involvement of the federal government in the intercession procedures. Nevertheless, this disaster never received the most needed response. In meeting the failures of the assigned response teams, the government projected a federal-heavy top-down outlook to cataclysm (Palser, 2007). In this regard, President Bush recommended that DOD be involved in disaster management and intercession above all in cases of critical desolation such as Katrina. President Bush during his administration ascertained that grave disasters call for substantial federal influence and powerful role of the armed forces. President Bush viewed a top-down system compared to bottom-up perspective as a perfect strategy in disaster management.

The response of the government during Hurricane Katrina was dysfunctional and disorganized. The government had restructured FEMA reaction's response abilities in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks and this led to the breakdown of the whole response system. FEMA did not implement effectively the NRP (National Response Plan). After declaration of the disaster by the president, decisions to make NRP to seek the services of civilian and military resources of the Federal government to help the local and state agencies did not come in time (Palser, 2007). . The delay instigated more harm with New Orleans flooding causing destructions to properties and people. Over one thousand and two hundred lives were lost in Mississippi and Louisiana. FEMA failed to work with local and state leading to marginalization of donations from the private sectors. It was not clear who was in charge of the response phase during Hurricane Katrina.

The deprived response was because of failure to control several risks. Moreover, the dispersed temperament of U.S. intergovernmental response mechanism also made weak the response given that some federal responders did not acknowledge the need to engage actively with other teams of response (Palser, 2007). Institutions to manage the team of responders at government level were not sufficient. The response team entailed inter-governmental (state, local and federal) and cross-sectoral ( non-profit, private and public).

The recovery phase was also unproductive with no agency taking full responsibility of the process. Communications among the parties involved was incomplete and sporadic. The communities across the affected areas were struggling with the slowed FEMA and increasing bureaucratic. The competent FEMA disaster mangers were replaced with contractors from DHS and this constantly slowed the phase of recovery. Following the effects of Katrina disaster, the Department of Homeland Security disassembled FEMA's role in emergency management. The director of FEMA seized to be a Cabinet member and the emergency management programs spread across agencies and the Department of Homeland Security. After deconstruction of FEMA, mitigation seized to be the basis of the FEMA management system. However, According Wenning (2006), the use of information and communication technology in organizational and human context facilitates mitigation measures.

The failure to react to warning characterized the federal team of responders. They lacked the need and urgency and they treated Katrina as a normal storm. Senior Staff from White House never reconvened when the calamity seemed imminent (Wenning, 2006). The tragic occurrences that took place in Katrina's wake, have served to underline the significance of disaster management. The interplay between organizational and technical considerations has been underlined. Dealing with diverse responsibilities undermined the response efforts. The federal responders failed while they waited for certain requests to help the local and state authorities. Moreover, the diverse responsibilities made the efforts more intricate due to lack of a unified command. The lack of unified command was a result of new strategies that did not establish rules on how the response team needed to act.

More Proactive Disaster Policy

Natural disasters are known for demoralizing effects on human life, environment and economy. In this regard, efforts can be made to lower the impacts of natural disasters through effective disaster management policies. Disaster management policy is a key component in good leadership and it is a term interchangeably utilized with the phrase emergency management. Effective disaster management policies includes plans, arrangements and structures introduced to engage normal efforts of the government, private agencies and voluntary organizations in a detailed and organized manner to react to the entire continuum of emergency requirements. All actions are centralized at government agencies and department (Wenning, 2006).Disaster policy refers to the procedures and processes linked to management and control of natural and fabricated disasters. The process increases the capacity of people and organizations in reducing impacts of disasters and vulnerabilities. Effective disaster management calls for planning, organizing, mobilization of resources and completion stages akin to public project management. Effective disaster polices hold a distinctive temperament of services and products, offers the temporary nature of the product, knowledge, skills and tool required to effectively manage the disasters.

A more proactive disaster management policy must entail

Prediction

Warning

Emergency relief

Rehabilitation

Reconstruction

The major activities in these proactive actions include mitigation and preparedness, response and the recovery process. The policies can be more proactive when mitigation and preparedness are performed in the prediction stage (Haddow, Bullock & Coppola, 2010). This entails taking structural measures to lower adverse effects of disasters. The measures are carried out prior to any disaster to guarantee effective response to disaster. There should be issuance of effective and timely early warnings and removal of properties from threatened areas.