Hi everyone.
     This is an interesting discussion.  I remember many years ago in 
the first disaster I studied and worked in when university students 
swarmed up to the Andean valley where I worked after the 1970 Peruvian 
earthquake, proclaiming that revolution had come to Peru in an act of 
God.  The departmental capital of Huaraz was in rubble, 20,000 people 
died there, and a large region about the size of Belgium, Holland, and 
Denmark combined was devastated.  However, it didn't take long for the 
military government to take control of the situation and suppress any 
further action by the students.  The military government had its own 
"revolutionary" (read reformist) agenda and wasn't about to relinquish 
it.

Probably the most interesting thing I've read on the topic was Rick 
Olson and Vincent Gawronski's article in the IJMED (21: 1: 5-36) in 2003 
comparing the 1972 Managua earthquake with the 1985 Mexico City 
earthquake as possible critical junctures in political change. Both 
disasters were thought to have catalyzed profound political change, but 
their careful analysis of both disasters in the context of Nicaraguan 
and Mexican history and politics showed clearly that only the Nicaraguan 
event played a key critical role in political change.  The Nicaraguan 
event played a critical role in the eventual downfall of the dictator 
Anastasio Somoza, largely through his theft of vast amounts of 
post-disaster aid and using the disaster as a pretext to install 
military rule.  Outrage at his actions undermined any support he had 
from the middle classes and shifted public opinion toward the 
Sandinistas who eventually took power after a civil war in 1979.

  However, in the Mexican case, while the performance of the Mexican 
government in the earthquake certainly further undermined its 
credibility, the actual process which led to the end 
(temporarily...they're back) of 70 years of rule by the PRI (Partido 
Revolucionario Institucional) had begun 17 years earlier with the 
Tlatelolco massacre of students peacefully protesting the expenditure of 
vast amounts of money on the Olympic games rather than on addressing the 
dire conditions of the Mexican population.  In addition, the poor 
performance of the government in several economic crises showed that the 
earthquake was part of a larger process in which the authority and 
dominance of the PRI was undermined and lost power gradually in 
municipal elections and eventually at the national level in 2000 (15 
years after the earthquake) leading to an era of quasi democratic 
government.

best,
Tony




On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 01:31:26 -0400, Ben Wisner wrote:
> There is a growing body of evidence that disasters are capable of
> catalyzing political change at geopolitical, national and local 
> scale.
> Ilan Kelman's web site, "Disaster Diplomacy" contains much of this
> evidence including a breakthrough for peace-making in Aceh following
> the tragic Indian Ocean tsunami (http://www.disasterdiplomacy.org/ ).
>
> In Nepal there may soon be another case of a disaster jump-starting
> stalled political change. Nepal's parliament has finally approved the
> outline of a constitution some five years after the deadline of 2010
> set after the end of the civil war in 2006
> 
> (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33067693?post_id=10153345172283185_10153422209343185#_=_
> ).  Government dysfunction is widely believed to be an important
> factor that undermines efforts to reduce earthquake risk in Nepal. If
> finally a constitution is forthcoming and a federalist division of
> power is established, one might hope for more focused attention on 
> the
> threats and opportunities facing 30 million people living in one of
> the most seismically active parts of the planet.
>
> At first glance, news of breaking the log jam in parliament seems to
> be good news. However, with the monsoon coming soon and some affected
> villages still too isolated to enjoy sufficient relief, with tens of
> thousands still homeless and thousands of classrooms and health
> facilities destroyed, will the recovery process suffer because civil
> servants and politicians are distracted by this latest political
> development?  That would be ironic.  Movement beyond the stalemate
> following the 'comprehensive peace agreement' in 2006 is certainly to
> be welcomed and, in the long run, may be the start of an effective
> federal approach to governance that will facilitate reduction of
> earthquake risk. But the eight provinces envisioned will need to be
> established, institutions modified, resources re-distributed,
> provincial parliaments created. In the short run, the re-division of
> Nepal will demand a great deal of attention to detail by the very
> decision makers and leaders in present-day district administrations
> who are hard pressed to manage relief and early recovery.
>
>
>
> Dr. Ben Wisner
> Aon-Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre, University College London, 
> UK
> & Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania
> & Environmental Studies Program, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH, USA
>
> "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you 
> care."

-- 
Anthony Oliver-Smith
Professor Emeritus
Department of Anthropology
University of Florida

1739 NW 11th Road
Gainesville, FL 32605
tel.352-377-8359;Fax 352-392-6929
www.anthonyoliver-smith.net