Disaster Governance in Conflict-Affected Authoritarian Contexts: The Cases of Ethiopia, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe

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.

Crisis management of authoritarian regimes in the digital era: the case of epidemic prevention and control in China

“…However, as for the use of digital governance for crisis management in China, the majority of studies within the literature have tended to analyse it from a technical lens (Wang and Zhao, 2020;Tuzcuoglu et al, 2022;Jiang, 2022) rather than from the perspective of the interrelationship between technology, people and institutions under a governance framework. Furthermore, understanding framing and power processes in crisis management could help us determine such a framework's real objective (Desportes and Hilhorst, 2020). Therefore, this paper attempts to determine China's overall governance structure and analyse the characteristics of authoritarian regimes in the digital era when dealing with crises.…”

Depoliticising disaster response in a politically saturated context: the case of the 2016–19 droughts in Zimbabwe

“…When policies such as the Water Act of 1976 eroded local autonomy, Bulawayo City Council officials and residents felt that the GoZ had 'hijacked' their attempts to address the water crisis, locating this within the broader history of ethnic, political, economic, and regional marginalisation of the area. As detailed for Ethiopia, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe, in authoritarian LIC contexts, disaster responders have to navigate political sensitivities, rumours, and accusations, bureaucratic obstructions, and uncertainty, which all further restrict their room to manoeuvre (Desportes and Hilhorst, 2020).…”

Ethical considerations of disaster research in conflict-affected areas

“…In reality, the framing of research questions is a highly sensitive exercise that can steer the research process and preclude certain outcomes over others. As Olsen et al (2003) pointed out, simple questions such as "what happened" and "what will happen next" are highly political and the answers will differ widely depending on whom you ask (Desportes and Hilhorst, 2020). The definition of the research question is equally political and can steer power imbalances by defining what is worth being studied and how.…”