The Hindu Business Line : Katrina blows in lessons on good governance

The image of the US administration as a model of good governance has taken a beating in the wake of the hurricane Katrina's devastation. When the Bush administration took over in 2001, many of FEMA's (Federal Emergency Management Agency) programmes were reduced or cut entirely. The war against terrorism and the war in Iraq have begun to take its toll.

THE ADMINISTRATION in the United States has always been perceived as a model of good governance. Ergo, it has the right to criticise developing countries for their `lack of governance'. This image took a beating in the wake Hurricane Katrina's devastation. Those who watched the images of `death by water', floating corpses and public looting broadcast on television were bemused.

True, the hurricane was unprecedented in scale and ferocity. As disasters go, it was sudden though not wholly unanticipated.

Unlike governments in developing countries, the authorities had the advantage of sophisticated warning systems. Those warnings were not heeded. The local authorities were unprepared or they lacked the resources. There was utter chaos and confusion for five days.

How did things come to such a pass? It was due to a lack of governance. Not a single centralised agency took charge when the disaster struck. Under US law, disaster management is a federal responsibility and administrative action vests with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Even as the TV screens relayed images of people dead or dying, FEMA seemed unaware of the turn of events. There were squabbles over jurisdiction, leading to inaction for five days.

The Homeland Security Secretary, Mr Michael Chertoff, acknowledged that "Washington was insufficiently prepared for the hurricane that laid waste New Orleans and the surrounding areas".

He went on to defend the Department's performance, saying that the size of the hurricane was beyond what was anticipated and that the primary responsibility for handling emergencies rested with the State and local, not federal, officials. It was the political fallout that ultimately stirred the President, already under criticism over Iraq, into action. During his visit to the affected areas, the President joked about his younger days spent on the golf courses there. The public was aghast.

After a week, the damage-containment team went into overdrive. Relief was offered to evacuees (the press reports have chosen not to use the word `refugees') and fund raising was in full swing. Mr Bush has sought an additional budgetary provision of $51.8 billion for the effort.

The Senate is meeting ahead of schedule to revise its timetable. However, recriminations continue. The FEMA and its incumbent, Mr Michael D. Brown, are being grilled. Mr Bush has defended him and has not agreed to remove him. An acrimonious `blame game' is being played.

There are demands for an enquiry into the lapses and the delays. Mr Brown, in his defence, has said that he had to coordinate work with 14 federal agencies and their counterparts at the State and local levels, on the one hand, and fend off criticism over FEMA's failure to act, on the other.

Republicans have charged Democrats with "politicising" a humanitarian issue. Democrats have demanded an enquiry by a commission on the lines of the one ordered into 9/11.

For Indians in the US, all this rings familiar and is reminiscent of political scenes back home during floods or other such disasters.

It is surprising that until a few decades ago the federal government was thought to have few responsibilities towards disaster relief and even the duties it had were delegated to the American Red Cross.

As Mr David A. Moss, professor at Harvard University wrote, "A century ago, no one would have expected a massive federal response.

Most people viewed natural disasters mainly as things to be endured on their own or with the help of their neighbours and communities." (When All Else Fails: Government as the Ultimate Risk Manager, Harvard University Press, 2002.) It was after the New Deal, especially in recent decades, that Washington began to have a role in preventing disasters, natural or man-made, to compensate state, local governments, companies and even individuals. These were ad hoc.

FEMA was created in 1979 to remedy the ad hocism in handling a number of disasters, especially Hurricane Camille that devastated the Mississippi coast in 1969. As one report in the L. A. Times stated, "The Federal Emergency Management Agency once speedily delivered food, water, shelter and medical care to disaster areas... Like a commercial insurance firm setting safety standards to prevent future problems, it also underwrote efforts to get cities and states to reduce risks ahead of time and plan for what they would do if calamity struck."

During Mr Bill Clinton's presidency, FEMA was revitalised. The then Director, Mr James Lee Witt, responded speedily to the 1993 Mississippi flood and other disasters. Mr Witt paid greater attention to programmes to reduce risks ahead of disasters. When the Bush administration took over in 2001, many of Mr Witt's programmes were reduced or cut entirely.

As Dr Paul Krugman, columnist for The New York Times, described it: "The administration has... treated the emergency management agency like an unwanted stepchild, leading to a mass exodus of experienced professionals."

The war against terrorism and the war in Iraq have begun to take its toll. With the formation of Homeland Security, FEMA lost its identity. Lack of funds further weakened FEMA. It was known that New Orleans was vulnerable to flooding and direct hits from hurricane. Federal and State authorities have been working since the late 1960s on hurricane and flood relief. In 1995, Congress authorised the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project (SELA).

The Army Corps of Engineers worked on SELA and spent about $430 million shoring up levees and building pumping stations.

By 2003, the flow of federal funding to SELA began to dry up. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 to 2005 cited the cost of the Iraq war as a reason for the lack of hurricane and flood-control dollars.

On June 8, 2004, Mr Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, told the Times-Picayune, "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq. And I suppose, that is the price we pay." Sadly, a massive long-term programme seeking to prevent disasters in the area and pending with the Senate was shelved.

When disaster struck, the law and order situation went out of control, and there was looting by hungry residents. There was desertion by the police. Since around 7,000 local National Guards were drafted for duty in Iraq, the local authorities were unable to quell the rioters.

"If Mr Bush had not diverted so many National Guard units to Iraq, disaster relief following hurricane Katrina would have been swifter and more effective," The Financial Times said. Ultimately, the Los Angeles National Guards had to be called back from Iraq.

There is no `governance' in the abstract and sound policies are as important as good governance.

Much of the misery in New Orleans was due to the social divide between the whites and the African-Americans, the rich and the poor, those who had cars and those who could not even afford bus fares, those who had insurance and medical cover and those who did not. The list goes on.

It is tragic that the most advanced country in the world does not have a social compact to take care of the other half. Say, like the one in Bangladesh with bad governance.

(The author, a former Finance Ministry official, has extensive experience in international, financial and trade issues.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
A new bonhomie

Promoters cannot afford to alienate accountants

An inquiry into independence

What you need is a prefix, a pullover and a tattoo to complete the CAricature

Succession planning

Banking on information systems

Katrina blows in lessons on good governance

Cost control is firmly back in the corporate agenda

Drug prices

Fuel price hike