Rebuilding the nation: Whither ground reality
The public response to the catastrophe has been overwhelming. Foreign assistance has been exceedingly generous. The response of civil societies at home and abroad has been magnificent, perhaps unprecedented in history.

By and large the actions of civil society, as well as of government authorities, have been commendable in many ways. Yet the massive scale of the disaster, our political culture and hasty decision making have made it necessary to review some of the approaches and decisions.

There is little doubt that the government has adopted a top down approach to the reconstruction effort despite the huge response of civil society. The committees appointed have been largely of bureaucrats and of the business community. The public display of political solidarity has remained symbolic. The effort to muster all shades of political parties into the reconstruction effort has been inadequate. There is evidence from various parts of the country that the relief operations are politicised. Civil society that made such a massive effort is virtually told that the government can do it alone.

The government is making decisions without taking into consideration the ground realities and people's aspirations. The government made an announcement that it would build houses for all those who had lost their homes.

Impliedly the huge efforts of civil society to house people are unnecessary. The fact is that there are efforts big and small to construct houses. Instead of weaving these efforts to a total plan at rebuilding the housing stock, the government is sending signals that there is no need for a civil society contribution to the massive needs of the community.

This may not be the intention of government but several pronouncements are at least ambiguous and confusing. This is dangerous as these efforts may be stifled or withdrawn. Some of those needing housing may well be denied such houses. There is a need for both the government and civil society to be involved in providing houses. There have been little efforts to consult the affected people about where they would like to be resettled or in what type of houses. Town planning and modernisation are good concepts, but the people concerned must be consulted. The government is going ahead with its own concepts of the type of housing.

The fact that experts on housing are advising the government about quick and cheap solutions to rebuilding houses does not mean that people want them built that way. Those who have to live in the houses must be consulted and appropriate plans must be devised. Even small efforts of people to build a cluster of houses have met with pleadings from people who lost their houses that the type of houses they want are not what was planned by the donors. Houses are not mere buildings with a certain amount of square feet, but a very personal need. People's culture of living and livelihoods have an important bearing on the success of the house-rebuilding programme.

If the views of the people who are to live in the houses are not sought, we may end up with a lot of empty houses used for other purposes other than for living. A serious flaw in the housing programme could be the announcement that house construction will not be allowed within a certain distance from the coast. Is such a restriction practical? First of all leaving such an extent unused is a significant extent of the land area of the country, around 5 %.

Second, is there land available at reasonable distance away from the coast for such construction? In many areas the answer is no. Third, is it practical for the fishing community that is mostly affected to live far away from the coast where their boats and nets have to be kept? The decision about the distance away from the coast has been taken without consideration of either the ground situation or the wish of the people.

It is also based on the fear that another tsunami or similar disaster is likely to occur regularly. We are not saying that precautionary measures should not be taken, but a blanket decision can be detrimental to the affected people.

Instead the decisions should be decentralised and the housing programmes must mix caution with the ground realities and the aspirations of the people who would ultimately live in these houses.

The government's projection of the relief, reconstruction and rebuilding effort as a government initiative is fraught with dangers. The required effort is too massive for the government alone to complete. The government posture could lead to a withholding of essential help from the community both in material terms and voluntary human efforts. It must be a joint and combined effort of the government and the people. Apart from the resources of the community being withdrawn, even foreign assistance may be withheld, if it is perceived that it is a politicised effort of the government.

It must be remembered that much of the foreign assistance is from community and individuals in foreign countries. And they would lose their enthusiasm and resolve if reports reach them, as they would, that the government is attempting to gain politically rather than helping the people affected in a fair-minded way. Even funds coming from foreign governments are people's tax money and foreign governments have to be accountable to them. Funds already pledged may not be forthcoming if the people in the donor countries perceive that they are not properly utilised. There have been statements that funds should be channelled to the government for the reconstruction. This is presumably on the premise that the government and officials are not corrupt but civil society is. Past experience does not support such a contention.

Both politicians and bureaucrats in this country are known to be corrupt and international ratings place their corruption as one of the highest in the world. No doubt many individuals and NGOs are also known to be corrupt. Unfortunately large sums of money are a temptation for corruption.

It is for this reason that a decentralised effort with extensive civil society participation could be valuable. The task of rehabilitation, reconstruction and rebuilding is a massive one. The government alone cannot do it. A combined effort of the government, civil society, foreign countries, international organisations and foreign friends can do it together. Let us not miss this opportunity of obtaining their assistance.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.