What Disasters Cannot Teach

Humanity, along with the civilisation it has created, has also succeeded in producing solutions against the negative effects of natural events. However, these solutions are not aimed at preventing the occurrence of natural events, but at minimising their effects on societies. Natural events always occur, but when they affect the lives of societies, they turn into disasters.

Throughout the history of mankind, fears of the unknown have turned into efforts to understand what is happening and to protect oneself with the explanations of science. Today, it is possible to predict many natural events in advance and create time to take necessary measures. The systematic execution of all these processes is called disaster management.

Disasters are social stress situations and solutions should be produced rapidly with crisis management. Otherwise, stress increases and may cause great damage to the social structure. For this reason, the fight against disasters should be a total fight. In other words, all elements of the society are expected to be involved in the struggle. At such times, deepening the divisions in the society can be a fatal mistake.

All societies learn lessons from the experiences of various disaster situations. What is done right is reinforced and institutionalised. What needs to be done at the institutional and individual level to prevent the repetition of what was done wrong is included in training programmes at various levels, and it is expected and controlled that the executing elements take the necessary measures.

The earthquake in Istanbul on 23 April 2025 formed the title of this article in my mind. After every disaster, we witness the statements of the authorities that we can call standard. These never change in post-disaster environments. Only those who experience the pain are different.

In fact, it is possible to perceive a 6.2 magnitude earthquake in Istanbul, which was survived almost without loss, as the realisation to the society of the disaster drills that were planned but never carried out seriously. No drill is conducted to see how good and successful you are. It is done in order to reveal the faulty points and take corrective measures, in other words, to be more ready. However, this simple fact is often overlooked in drills.

In the hours following the earthquake, television channels and the internet pages of newspapers broadcast our esteemed geological engineer professors on the air, even by telephone, and discussed important issues such as which fault zone was ruptured and what the effect of this would be on other faults. Our people, who are already too close to science (!), have been informed about the movements and effects of all faults as if they were going to prepare a geology master's thesis. We watched the public's test with science in an environment where people made predictions about the probable earthquake intensity in the streets and neighbourhood coffeehouses, but no one had any idea about which roads were open to traffic, which gathering area was where.

None of the channels preferred to give the information that the public really needed, such as the traffic density on the roads on the map of Istanbul, the gathering centres and what to do about the distribution of materials. In short, instead of managing the disaster, public interest, fear and anxiety were tried to be managed. Technical details of the event were explained to people who had no interest in it. However, a geology professor has very superficial knowledge about disaster management. No one pays attention to those who have knowledge and say on disaster management in all its dimensions.

It was reported in the visual media that the people could not reach the assembly areas due to the ongoing construction activities in some assembly areas. However, it was known by everyone that gathering areas were of vital importance in an earthquake and all the experiences repeatedly emphasised the necessity of gathering areas. Later, when schools were cancelled and school gardens were allocated to citizens as gathering areas, it was as if the problem was solved. Those who looked up the meaning of the word proactive in the dictionary were proud of their work.

As in the aftermath of almost every disaster, GSM service providers were unable to cope with the intensity. Concession agreements, besides providing certain advantages to the companies, also impose responsibilities. The government should have warned the GSM companies and made the necessary legal arrangements in order to prevent this from happening again. However, the imbalance between the advantages in favour of the company and the responsibilities of the company in the concession contracts did not bother anyone.

From the moment the earthquake struck, the differences of opinion between the central government and the local government were severely felt. This situation not only harmed the spirit of the collective struggle against disasters, but also had the effect of deepening the existing divisions in the society. In fact, it was in direct contradiction with Article 123 of the Constitution, which sets out the principle of the integrity of the administration.

The times when unity and solidarity are most needed in society are times of crisis such as disasters and wars. Responsible politicians and administrators must avoid divisive discourses between certain segments of the public in these environments. Hoping to benefit from such behaviours and discourses for the sake of political gain is the greatest injustice that can be done to the society.

The most needed resource in a disaster is clean water. Protection of water basins, especially around metropolises, should be considered not only during disasters but also as a continuous state of preparedness. For this reason, central and local governments should cooperate against the opening of water basins for construction, quarrying and mining.

More theoretical studies in the field of disaster management may have a transformative effect on wrong current attitudes. Universities have a lot of work to do in this regard. It should be expected and supported that the studies on disasters should go beyond situation determination and provide a theoretical basis in terms of strengthening the institutional structure. Disaster management, which is an interdisciplinary field, should not be a field in which only geological or civil engineering is active. The step that will ensure this is more theoretical studies.

An earthquake, which can be considered severe in Istanbul, was overcome almost like a drill. The whole society should be aware of the value of this. The lessons to be learned both in public administration and social behaviour are very clear. The important thing is to put aside political interests and produce policies that will secure the future of society. All segments of the society are responsible for this. From now on, disasters should teach us something.

The problem is not only earthquake. All natural events that turn into disasters show that something is missing in society. Those in power who have the responsibility of governing the state should not fall into the ease of skirting around the problems with policies that save the day. Otherwise, it would be unfair to blame the Almighty God for the lack of merit, incompetence, ranting, corruption and incompetence.