Hi all,
Many thanks, indeed, Ilan for raising this very important issue. The Latvia case seems to me a kind of ad-hoc accountability, which is very interesting but which, I think, does not capture the whole picture. Accountability should also refer to how projects/social services/infrastructure/legislations/etc. for DRR and other everyday issues are designed, i.e. by whom and for whom. In this context, there is a danger that ad-hoc accountability may also often emphasise upward accountability at the detriment of downward accountability (to those at the frontline and first concerned, i.e. those who are vulnerable) which, I think, requires a more holistic, social and pre-emptive perspective.
Best wishes,
JC
--
JC Gaillard, PhD
Associate Professor
School of Environment
The University of Auckland / Te Whare Wânanga o Tâmaki Makaurau
Private Bag 92019
Auckland 1142
New Zealand / Aotearoa
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://web.env.auckland.ac.nz/people_profiles/gaillard_j/
Tel: +64 (0)9 923 9679
Fax: +64 (0)9 373 7434
Skype ID: gaillard_jc
Editor of Disaster Prevention and Management: www.emeraldinsight.com/dpm.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Radix [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ullberg Susann
> Sent: jeudi 28 novembre 2013 17:41
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: SV: Accountability for Disaster
>
> Hi! Great that you raised the question, Ilan!
>
> For the Latvian case, I believe we need to know more about the context of
> this seemingly unexpected decision before jumping to conclusions about
> its' appropriateness. What sense does this measure make in the Latvian
> cultural and political setting, and what are the interpretations of it in
> the Latvian public debate? Any Latvian colleagues among Radixers who can
> bring some more nuanced understanding here?
>
> At a more generic level, actions like this occurring on the highest
> symbolic-political level without any prior escalation leading to it, risks
> precluding all other instances of accountability. Hence, the possibilities
> to identify the weaknesses and strengths in the system are aborted, and so
> are the chances of changing them. I use the concept "logic of omission" to
> denote the processes of selectivity in what we choose to recall and what
> to forget from a critical event. If accountability is focused on one front
> figure scapegoat only, no matter its symbolic importance at a societal
> level, the multiple responsibilities within a system are omitted from
> public debate and policy making. In my view, such a logic of omission
> merely reproduces structures of vulnerability.
>
> Best //Susann
>
>
>
> Susann Ullberg___________________________________________________
> PhD Social Anthropology || Fil Dr i socialantropologi Senior Analyst ||
> Senioranalytiker CRISMART Crisis Management Research & Training ||
> Nationellt Centrum för Krishanteringsstudier www.crismart.org Swedish
> National Defence College || Försvarshögskolan Box 27805
> SE-115 93 Stockholm
> SWEDEN
> +46-8-55342731
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ________________________________
> Från: Radix [[log in to unmask]] för Ilan Kelman
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Skickat: den 28 november 2013 00:00
> Till: [log in to unmask]
> Ämne: Accountability for Disaster
>
>
> This list has frequently discussed accountability for disaster. In Latvia,
> we see it in action http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25120936 with
> the Prime Minister resigning over the supermarket roof collapse. Is this
> an appropriate reaction, is this the accountability that we seek?
>
> Ilan
>
> http://www.ilankelman.org
|