Disaster Politics

Google Images/<a href="http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/09/images/20080923-1_d-0148-5-515h.html">White House</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The Pakistani government’s response to the massive floods that have devastated the country isn’t getting the best reviews. Government food aid, medical supplies, and rescue services have been slow to reach affected areas, critics charge. At a press conference on Thursday, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari provided some clarification: he’s “not the government”, just “governance“—and “governance” doesn’t like it when people criticize the government. Cutting a vacation short to return to his flood-devastated country, Zardari struck out against “undemocratic forces [that] were maligning the government with their false propaganda about possibilities of corruption in [sic] utilisation of funds.” Such “allegations against the government . . . are malicious and baseless as always, aimed only at weakening the democracy.”

Zardari’s bizarre statement may be amusing, but reports that Islamist charities have been quick to fill the relief vacuum left by an absconding, slow-footed Pakistani government are no small matter. Regional expert Steve Coll considers how disasters expose what we know about a government, a country, and its most helpless:

A few days after an earthquake, you feel immediately the presence of the state—or its absence. People have reasonable expectations that their government or military or social or religious charities will scramble into action and make themselves felt after an earthquake. Where are the bulldozers? Where are the portable hospitals? Open those roads! If a government doesn’t perform, people can get agitated pretty quickly. Governments rise and fall over earthquakes. [emphasis added]

The point is simple, striking, and a terribly mean-sounding: disasters are opportunities for everyone. If Zardari can’t do what the Islamist charities can, he’ll continue to shed political capital. That’s exactly what seems to be happening, and no one seems particularly surprised.

As Pakistan-based columnist Mosharraf Zaid writes, there’s also broader narrative unfolding. Zaid notes the aid dollars donated so far to flood victims—around $16 per affected Pakistani, vs. $1250-per-2004-tsunami victim, and $1000 per Haitian earthquake victim. Here’s his theory about that:

[I]n this case, the humanity of Pakistan’s victims takes a backseat to the preconceived image that Westerners have of Pakistan as a country. Pakistan is a country that no one quite gets completely, but apparently everybody knows enough about to be an expert. If you’re a nuclear proliferation expert, suddenly you’re an expert on Pakistan. If you’re [a] terrorism expert, ditto: expert on Pakistan. India expert? Pakistan, too then. Of South Asian origin of any kind at a think-tank, university, or newspaper? Expert on Pakistan. Angry that your parents sent you to the wrong madrassa when you were young? Expert on Pakistan. The net result of Pakistan’s own sins, and a global media that is gaga over India, is that Pakistan is always the bad guy.

In other words, Pakistanis are too often seen as a project, not a people. Their country is the perfect subject for almost any geo-political dissertation topic. That makes it hard for foreigners to respond to the floods as a human tragedy. Bad things happen in Pakistan because it’s Pakistan; from AQ to Zardari, it’s all catastrophe. We’ve come to expect Zardari to screw up, for the Islamist charities to swoop in, and for the American and Pakistani armies to wage a hearts-and-minds campaign because that’s just what happens over there.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate