In the
Handbook of Disaster Research, edited by Havidán Rodríguez, William Donner, and Joseph E. Trainor (2018, Springer), the term “disaster” is understood in a broader, more social context than simply a natural hazard. The book emphasises that disasters are not merely events of nature, but rather phenomena that occur when hazardous events interact with societal vulnerability, exposure, and the capacity of communities to respond. A disaster is defined as a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or society at any scale, which results in human, material, economic, and environmental losses and impacts, exceeding the affected community’s ability to cope using its own resources. In this framework, the focus shifts from the hazard itself to the social structures and conditions that make a society vulnerable, such as poverty, inadequate planning, weak infrastructure, and limited institutional capacity. Therefore, what constitutes a disaster depends not only on the occurrence of hazardous events but also on how social, economic, and institutional factors influence the severity of its impact. The
Handbook of Disaster Research encourages a multidisciplinary approach to understanding disasters, integrating perspectives from sociology, public policy, urban planning, and risk management, alongside traditional studies of natural hazards.
In this context, the English word “disaster” is best translated into Bahasa Indonesia as “bencana”. According to the Handbook, a disaster or “bencana” can be understood as a serious disruption to the functioning of a community or society caused by a hazardous event that interacts with conditions of vulnerability and exposure, resulting in human, material, economic, or environmental losses that exceed the community’s capacity to cope using its own resources. This definition underscores that a disaster is not merely a natural phenomenon, but a socially and structurally mediated condition where the interplay between hazard, vulnerability, and capacity determines whether an event becomes catastrophic.
The editors and contributors argue that what constitutes a “disaster” depends on social context: vulnerability, inequality, governance, and historical processes shape who suffers and how badly. The book brings together sociological, demographic, economic, and policy‑oriented analyses to show that disasters expose structural weaknesses — in inequality, urban planning, social services — and that recovery, mitigation, and resilience require addressing those systemic vulnerabilities, not just reacting to the “hazard event.”
Thus, the central message is: disasters reveal existing social fault lines, and social science must lead in understanding disasters — not only geoscience or meteorology.
In the Handbook of Disaster Research, disasters are portrayed not just as episodes of nature‑induced destruction, but as socially mediated events whose severity and consequences depend heavily on pre‑existing social, economic, demographic and policy structures. The editors and contributors argue that what makes a hazardous event turn into a “disaster” is not merely the force of nature, but the intersection between that hazard and human vulnerability shaped by inequalities, social stratification, and uneven distribution of resources.
From a sociological and demographic standpoint, the book pays attention to how differences in class, race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, and other axes of social stratification shape who is most vulnerable to disasters. For instance, social and economic inequalities—poverty, marginalisation, lack of political voice—often mean that disadvantaged groups suffer disproportionately when disasters strike. Similarly, children, the elderly, disabled people, or socially marginalised populations have reduced capacity to cope and recover—which demonstrates that demographics and social structure play a central role in shaping disaster outcomes.
Economically, the Handbook suggests that disasters tend to amplify pre‑existing economic inequalities rather than affect everyone equally. Communities or individuals with limited resources, unstable income, poor housing or lack of savings are less able to absorb shocks, recover, or rebuild. The economic impacts — loss of property, disruption of livelihoods, increased costs—often hit hardest those already on the margins. This underlines how disasters both reflect and reinforce structural economic injustice.
From a public policy and urban planning perspective, the book criticises approaches that treat disasters as isolated natural events to be combated solely by emergency responses or infrastructural fixes. Instead, it emphasises that long‑term mitigation and resilience require systemic changes: better spatial planning, equitable housing policies, social safety nets, inclusive disaster governance, and policies that reduce social vulnerability. The inclusion of chapters such as Climate Change and Disasters and Contributions of Technological and Natech Disaster Research to the Social Science Disaster Paradigm reflects the need to integrate hazard mitigation with social, technological and environmental policy — not simply to respond after a disaster, but to prevent or minimise one by transforming the social conditions that make populations vulnerable.
Importantly, the Handbook views disasters as opportunities for research and social reflection: during disaster and recovery phases, social inequalities, institutions’ readiness (or lack thereof), community resilience or fragmentation, and governance failures become starkly visible — more so than during stable times. This visibility can allow social scientists, policymakers and communities to diagnose structural injustice, question previous planning or governance failures, and promote reforms oriented toward justice, equity, and resilience.
Therefore, according to the Handbook, effective disaster mitigation and recovery must go beyond “hard” physical or technical solutions (e.g., flood barriers, drainage, early warning). They must also address “soft” structural dimensions: reducing poverty and inequality, ensuring equitable access to services, strengthening community social capital and institutional capacity, improving urban planning, and inclusive policy that anticipates vulnerability. Only by confronting these root social and structural conditions can societies build resilience and reduce the risk that future hazards become catastrophes.
According to Hazards, Risks, and Disasters in Society (edited by Andrew E. Collins et al., Elsevier, 2015), hazards and disasters cannot meaningfully be understood in isolation from societal structures, economies, and political decisions because what makes a hazard turn into a disaster is not simply the physical event itself but how people and societies are positioned to respond to, resist, or suffer from that event.
In the book, environmental catastrophes are analysed in historical, political and economic contexts, showing that personal and corporate culture mediate whether people become more vulnerable or more resilient to hazard exposure. Structural inequality, governance decisions, economic development (or lack thereof), social organisation, and cultural practices shape how risk is distributed, who is exposed, and who suffers when hazards occur.
Moreover, the authors argue that societies which strengthen their social institutions, build resilient infrastructures, and promote inclusive social and economic policies can mitigate the impacts of hazards and reduce the chance that those hazards become disasters—turning a potential calamity into a manageable crisis.
Thus, disasters are not simply “natural” events but socially constructed phenomena: their scale, intensity, and consequences depend heavily on human decisions — political, economic, cultural — and on pre-existing social vulnerabilities and capacities.
Disasters in society emerge from the entanglement of environmental and human systems because the severity and impact of a hazard are not determined solely by natural forces but by the social, economic, political, and cultural conditions in which people live. The book emphasises that floods, earthquakes, storms, or other environmental hazards become disasters only when they intersect with societal vulnerabilities such as poverty, unequal resource distribution, weak governance, and limited adaptive capacity. Understanding this complexity is essential for sustainable disaster risk reduction because effective mitigation requires addressing not just the physical hazard but also the structural factors that make certain populations more exposed and less resilient. By integrating knowledge of environmental processes with an analysis of social systems, policymakers and communities can design strategies that reduce risk, build resilience, and ensure that hazards do not escalate into catastrophic events.
A natural disaster is a sudden or gradual event caused by Earth's natural processes that results in significant harm to humans, property, or the environment. These events include, but are not limited to, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, landslides, and droughts. Natural disasters are not merely physical phenomena; their impact is often amplified by human factors such as population density, urban planning, social inequality, and economic vulnerability. In essence, a natural disaster occurs at the intersection of natural hazards and societal exposure or vulnerability. The severity of a disaster is therefore determined not only by the intensity of the natural event itself but also by the preparedness, resilience, and adaptive capacity of the affected communities.
From a broader perspective, natural disasters carry social, economic, cultural, and political significance. They can disrupt livelihoods, economies, and governance systems, challenge cultural practices and community cohesion, and expose underlying structural weaknesses within societies. In this sense, a natural disaster is both a physical occurrence and a social phenomenon, reflecting the complex interplay between the environment and human society. Understanding natural disasters requires an interdisciplinary approach that integrates earth sciences with social sciences, policy studies, and cultural awareness, in order to mitigate risks, manage impacts, and enhance community resilience.
From an ideological perspective, a natural disaster can be interpreted through the lens of human responsibility and governance. Ideologies that emphasise human stewardship of the environment view disasters as a signal of imbalance between human activity and natural systems. Alternatively, certain religious or spiritual ideologies interpret natural disasters as a form of divine will or moral test, underscoring the limits of human control and the necessity for ethical conduct.
From a philosophical standpoint, natural disasters challenge fundamental assumptions about human vulnerability, causality, and the nature of fate. Philosophers may analyse disasters as reminders of human mortality, the unpredictability of life, and the ethical imperative to respond to suffering. They raise questions about human agency, the moral obligations to aid others, and the philosophical tension between determinism and free will in the face of uncontrollable events.
In the political sphere, natural disasters are both a test and an instrument of governance. Governments are evaluated based on their preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. Politically, disasters can expose weaknesses in public institutions, provoke debates on policy priorities, and become tools for political actors to gain or lose legitimacy. National recognition of disasters, allocation of emergency funds, and coordination between central and local authorities are inherently political acts.
From a social perspective, natural disasters profoundly affect community structures, social cohesion, and collective resilience. Displacement, loss of life, and destruction of infrastructure disrupt social networks, alter demographic patterns, and highlight inequalities. Social analysis examines how disasters affect vulnerable populations, amplify pre-existing social vulnerabilities, and necessitate collective action and solidarity.
In the cultural context, natural disasters are interpreted and remembered through local beliefs, narratives, and rituals. Cultural frameworks influence how communities understand causation, ritualise mourning, and mobilise mutual aid. Cultural interpretations also shape collective memory, influencing the identity of affected communities and the transmission of lessons across generations.
From an economic perspective, natural disasters have both immediate and long-term financial implications. Destruction of property, disruption of trade, loss of livelihoods, and pressure on public budgets challenge economic stability. Economic analysis focuses on direct damages, indirect costs, recovery investments, insurance mechanisms, and the resilience of economic systems. The capacity of a state or community to recover economically often determines the broader impact of a disaster.
The concept of a natural disaster transcends a simple environmental phenomenon. Ideologically, it reflects human-environment interaction and ethical responsibility; philosophically, it raises questions about mortality and agency; politically, it tests governance and institutional legitimacy; socially, it affects cohesion and vulnerability; culturally, it shapes narratives and collective memory; and economically, it challenges stability and recovery mechanisms. Understanding disasters through these multiple lenses enables a more comprehensive approach to prevention, preparedness, and response.
A natural disaster is an event triggered by the forces of nature — such as earthquakes, floods, or storms — that causes significant harm to people, property, and the environment. While it originates in nature, its impact is shaped by human factors like population density, planning, and social inequality. In other words, a natural disaster is where nature meets society: the stronger the hazard and the more vulnerable the community, the greater the disaster. Understanding this connection is essential to reduce risks, prepare communities, and building resilience.
The floods and landslides currently affecting Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra present an exceptional case that warrants elevation to the status of a national disaster. In the Indonesian legal framework, national disaster designation is not merely symbolic; it triggers the mobilisation of central government resources, activates emergency funding mechanisms, and ensures coordinated inter-provincial operations. The scale, complexity, and simultaneous nature of the disaster exceed the capacity of provincial authorities, creating a clear operational and moral rationale for national intervention.
The geographical breadth of the catastrophe is significant. Multiple provinces are affected simultaneously, with cascading consequences on infrastructure, public services, and regional economies. This cross-provincial impact challenges the capacity of any single province to manage the disaster effectively. Coordination across provincial borders requires central oversight to ensure that logistics, resource allocation, and operational priorities are harmonised across the affected regions.
The human toll is equally alarming. Official reports indicate over 400 deaths, with hundreds of individuals still missing. Many areas remain physically isolated due to destroyed bridges, blocked roads, and disrupted communication lines. The scale of casualties and the complexity of search and recovery operations necessitate specialised teams, including disaster victim identification units, forensic personnel, and medical specialists, which are best coordinated at the national level.
Critical infrastructure has suffered extensive damage. National roads, bridges, electricity networks, and communication towers have been disrupted, affecting not only local communities but also regional and national trade networks. These strategic assets are essential to economic stability, and their collapse requires the intervention of central ministries, national engineering corps, and coordinated planning that exceeds provincial capacities.
The displacement of tens of thousands of residents further underscores the need for national oversight. Populations scattered across multiple provinces, including vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities, require standardised emergency shelters, medical care, and nutritional support. Provincial resources alone cannot sustain this level of humanitarian assistance over an extended period, while national intervention allows for equitable distribution and uniform standards.
Economic losses have been substantial. Agricultural lands, small businesses, and public facilities including schools and clinics have been destroyed. The cumulative economic impact surpasses the financial capacity of provincial governments to remediate. National designation facilitates coordinated reconstruction programmes, funding allocations, and economic recovery strategies that align with broader development objectives.
Provincial emergency response mechanisms are under significant strain. Local authorities are operating at full capacity, with personnel, equipment, and logistics stretched to their limits. National designation enables the deployment of additional resources, such as military support, specialised search and rescue teams, and emergency medical units, ensuring effective and safe operations across all affected areas.
Political and social considerations also justify national recognition. Widespread public concern, parliamentary scrutiny, media attention, and international visibility place pressure on the government to respond comprehensively. In a democratic context, acknowledging the disaster at the national level is both an operational necessity and a moral imperative, signalling the state’s commitment to protect and support its citizens.
The disaster highlights systemic weaknesses in local disaster management. Provincial administrations have demonstrated limitations in preparedness, early warning, and inter-agency coordination. National intervention allows for the standardisation of emergency protocols, reinforcement of technical capacity, and the alignment of local responses with central government strategies.
Legal criteria under Law No. 24 of 2007 provide a clear basis for national disaster designation, including the number of affected individuals, geographic spread, damage to infrastructure, and economic loss. The current situation in Sumatra meets and arguably exceeds these thresholds, providing both a sound legal and operational rationale for elevating the status of the disaster.
The international dimension further strengthens the case. Global media coverage and humanitarian concern create expectations for coordinated national and international response. Recognising the disaster as national facilitates cooperation with international agencies, donors, and NGOs, allowing relief and reconstruction efforts to adhere to global humanitarian standards.Temporal factors are also critical. The prolonged rainfall, ongoing landslides, and risk of secondary disasters create a protracted emergency that exceeds standard provincial emergency management protocols. National recognition ensures sustained mobilisation of resources for immediate relief, medium-term recovery, and long-term disaster risk reduction.
Social cohesion and public trust are at stake. Rapid, coordinated national action can maintain public confidence in governmental institutions, prevent social unrest, and reinforce the legitimacy of public authorities. Conversely, delays or fragmented responses risk exacerbating social tension and undermining confidence in governance structures.
Comparative analysis with previous national disasters in Indonesia, such as the 2004 Aceh tsunami and the 2018 Lombok earthquake, illustrates that when the scale, complexity, and inter-provincial nature of a disaster surpass local capacities, formal national designation is both necessary and effective. Historical precedent supports a proactive approach in the current Sumatra situation.
Finally, from an ethical perspective, recognising the disaster nationally affirms the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens. It signals moral accountability, ensures equitable distribution of aid, and underscores a commitment to human dignity and resilience in the face of natural catastrophes.
In conclusion, the floods and landslides across Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra satisfy operational, legal, political, social, and ethical criteria for designation as a national disaster. The combination of multi-provincial impact, human casualties, infrastructural damage, economic loss, and overextended local capacities makes national recognition both justified and indispensable for a coordinated, effective, and ethically responsible response.
It would be simplistic to attribute the recent floods and landslides in Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra solely to “bad luck” or “heavy rains.” A broad and increasingly credible body of evidence suggests that while extreme meteorological phenomena—including unusually heavy rainfall, possibly connected to evolving global climate patterns—may have triggered the events, underlying human-driven ecological and land‑use dynamics significantly magnified their impact.
To begin with, the degradation of peatlands and forests across Sumatra has undermined the natural resilience of the land. Peatlands once acted like sponges, absorbing rainfall and releasing it slowly, thus regulating water flow during heavy downpours. However, reports by environmental watchdog groups show that a large portion of Indonesia’s peatlands—especially in Sumatra—are now degraded, drained, or compacted, dramatically reducing their water‑retention capacity. Once these natural water buffers are gone, rainfall that previously might have been harmless now rushes over land as uncontrolled runoff—feeding rivers quickly and contributing to floods.
Moreover, large‑scale conversion of forest land into monoculture plantations (such as oil palm or rubber) and other land uses has altered the land’s capacity to absorb rain. Soil compaction and the loss of undergrowth in plantation zones make the earth behave more like concrete when it rains: instead of soaking water in, the surface sheds water rapidly. In catchment areas of Sumatra, such land‑use changes have been statistically associated with increased flood frequency and severity.
It is also important to recognise that even when heavy rain hits, the condition and management of river basins (watersheds / DAS—daerah aliran sungai) matter greatly. According to a recent press release from the relevant forestry ministry, certain flood‑hit areas recorded rainfall above 150 mm/day, exceeding the capacity of rivers that had already been weakened in their flow capacity by siltation, loss of vegetation, and altered river morphology. In other words, the rivers were already impaired—so the downpour simply tipped them over the edge.
Critical voices from environmental organisations argue that this disaster should not be classified as “natural” alone, but rather as a structural ecological collapse. The scale of forest loss in the three provinces concerned—Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra—over recent years has been substantial, including deforestation, peat drainage, and conversion for plantations and other extractive uses. This long‑term environmental mismanagement created conditions where the land, once resilient, became dangerously vulnerable—a vulnerability that a single heavy rainstorm was enough to exploit brutally.
From a climate‑change perspective, many experts suggest that what used to be rare “once‑in‑a‑decade” rainfall events are becoming more frequent and more intense worldwide, including across Indonesia. In that context, degraded ecosystems become doubly dangerous: not only do they fail to buffer rainfall, but they also increase the likelihood that rainfall will lead to disaster rather than gentle absorption. Thus, the current floods reflect the convergence of anthropogenic environmental degradation and global climate stress, producing crises more severe than “normal” floods.
Given these interlinked causes—peatland degradation, deforestation and land‑use change, compromised watershed/rivers, and shifting climate patterns—the floods and landslides in Sumatra cannot be seen as mere “acts of nature.” They are manifestations of a systemic failure in environmental protection, land management, and long‑term planning. The disaster is therefore as much social and ecological as it is meteorological.
In conclusion, a fair and critical reading of data and expert assessments reveals that the tragedy in Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra is the product of layered and interdependent causes: extreme weather acted as a trigger, but decades of environmental mismanagement turned what might have been manageable rainfall into a catastrophic flood. This analysis implies that any genuine effort to prevent future disasters must address not only emergency response, but also root‑cause interventions: protecting peatlands, reversing deforestation, restoring watershed health, and adapting land‑use to ecological limits.
Over the past few decades, the forest cover across Sumatra — including in Aceh, North Sumatra and West Sumatra — has declined dramatically, with data showing that this loss has not been evenly distributed but concentrated in natural forest and watershed zones that formerly acted as ecological buffers. A study of forest cover changes on Sumatra Island documented deforestation rates of 0.27 million hectares per year in the early 2000s. More recently, provincial statistics confirm that deforestation remains active: between 2021 and 2022, Aceh, North Sumatra and West Sumatra collectively lost 16,782 hectares of forest cover, a rise over prior years.
In Aceh, long‑term data reveal a “two‑decades of deforestation” phenomenon that has significantly eroded the natural forest/landscape protection once provided by dense forest cover. In North Sumatra, a land-use/cover change study covering 1990–2015 shows forest land decreasing from 2,322,770.86 hectares in 1990 to a much smaller area in 2015—a clear sign of extensive deforestation. Similarly, in West Sumatra, forest‑cover change analysis confirms significant forest loss, especially in areas with gentler slopes that are more accessible for conversion into plantations or agriculture.
What makes these forest losses critically relevant to the current 2025 floods and landslides is the fact that much of the lost forest lies in upstream catchment areas (watersheds, headwaters, slopes) that play a key hydrological role: they slow down, absorb, and regulate rainwater flow before it reaches rivers and lowlands. With deforestation and land‑use conversion—often for plantations or other development—the soil structure is degraded, roots that would anchor soil and absorb water are removed, and natural water absorption and retention capacity is lost. Consequently, even moderate or heavy rainfall can lead to rapid surface runoff, saturating rivers and triggering floods or landslides—a process many environmental researchers attribute to the amplified impact of human‑driven ecological degradation.
In fact, empirical analysis in Aceh found that flood events between 2011 and 2018 correlated significantly with areas of lower tree cover, higher prevalence of oil palm plantations, and increased precipitation—demonstrating that land‑use change and deforestation materially increased flood risk. The pattern suggests that deforestation is not an abstract environmental problem but directly modulates local hydrology, making floods more frequent and severe.
When the 2025 rainfall and weather disturbances—possibly intensified by broader climate anomalies—struck these regions, they encountered landscapes that had already lost their natural buffers. The result, tragically, was catastrophic: floodwaters rose rapidly, soil gave way on slopes, and rivers overflowed beyond their reduced carrying capacity. Many analysts now view this disaster not solely as a weather event but as a structural ecological crisis, where decades‑long forest loss and land‑use mismanagement transformed what could have been a manageable rainstorm into a full‑blown humanitarian catastrophe.
Economically, the consequences are immense. Recent estimates put the total losses for Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra—including damage to houses, infrastructure, agricultural land, and lost livelihoods—in the tens of trillions of rupiah. The irreversible loss of forest as ecological infrastructure compounds long‑term risk: rebuilding houses and roads does not restore the water regulation, slope stability, and soil health that forests once provided.
Thus, examining decades of deforestation data and overlaying them with current flood outcomes reveals a strong—indeed causal—link: areas with extensive forest loss are disproportionately affected by flooding and landslides. The 2025 disaster ought therefore to be seen not merely as a natural calamity but as the outcome of cumulative human decisions about land, economy, and environment. The tragedy underscores the urgent need for root‑cause interventions—forest protection, watershed restoration, land‑use planning aligned with ecological limits—rather than just reactive disaster relief.
The timing of the formal declaration of a national disaster is rarely determined solely by operational considerations; political factors often play a decisive role. In the context of the Sumatra floods and landslides, several political calculations may influence the government’s approach to declaration. First, national disaster recognition carries a significant political and symbolic weight. It signals the highest level of state involvement, and by extension, the government becomes directly accountable for the adequacy and speed of the response. In politically sensitive periods, such as approaching elections or during heightened public scrutiny, the government may delay formal recognition to manage perceptions, avoid criticism, or coordinate messaging with broader political strategies.
Second, budgetary and resource allocation considerations can influence the timing of national declaration. Declaring a disaster at the national level unlocks large sums of emergency funds, necessitates deployment of military and civil resources, and obligates central oversight for reconstruction and relief operations. Governments may wish to assess the full scale of the damage and the capacity of provincial authorities before mobilising these resources, to minimise political risk associated with perceived mismanagement or wastage of public funds.
Third, intergovernmental dynamics may play a role. Central and provincial governments must coordinate to ensure that responsibilities, operational chains, and bureaucratic hierarchies are aligned. In cases where political relationships between provincial and national authorities are complex or strained, the declaration may be delayed to allow negotiation over resource distribution, command authority, and reporting mechanisms. The national government may also wish to ensure that provincial administrations demonstrate initial competence, to maintain legitimacy and avoid perceptions of central overreach.
Fourth, media and public opinion management is a critical consideration. The government may seek to synchronise national disaster declaration with strategic communication campaigns to frame the narrative, highlight successes in relief efforts, or emphasise government responsiveness. Premature declaration, without sufficient preparation or logistical readiness, could expose weaknesses and invite domestic or international criticism, whereas careful timing allows authorities to control the political optics more effectively.
Fifth, the declaration may be influenced by diplomatic or international considerations. A national disaster designation opens the door for international assistance, NGO engagement, and foreign media coverage. Governments may therefore calibrate timing to coincide with diplomatic opportunities, funding mechanisms, or to avoid unwanted scrutiny, balancing the urgency of humanitarian needs with perceived national interest.
Finally, historical precedent and bureaucratic inertia can affect timing. National disaster declaration is governed by formal legal procedures and inter-agency consultations, which may take days or weeks, particularly when multiple provinces are involved. Delays are often not purely political but reflect the complex interplay between legal requirements, operational assessments, and political calculations. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect is that political factors—perceptions of accountability, electoral timing, intergovernmental relations, media optics, and international diplomacy—frequently influence when and how national recognition is formally granted.
In sum, while the operational and humanitarian rationale for national disaster recognition may be clear, the formal timing of declaration is a political decision as much as a bureaucratic or technical one. Governments balance the urgency of response with considerations of accountability, resource management, public perception, and diplomatic positioning, which can result in deliberate pauses or strategic timing before issuing formal recognition.
The decision to delay or strategically time the declaration of a national disaster carries significant political risks that extend beyond immediate operational considerations. First, public perception is highly sensitive to the responsiveness of government institutions. Any perceived delay in recognition, especially in the context of widespread suffering and media coverage, may erode public confidence and generate criticism from civil society, opposition parties, and even international observers. In the digital era, social media amplifies these perceptions rapidly, potentially influencing public sentiment and political narratives.
Second, the government’s handling of disaster recognition can have electoral implications. In regions where the disaster has had a pronounced impact, citizens may associate government responsiveness with political legitimacy and competence. Delays or inconsistencies in recognition may be interpreted as negligence or indifference, which can affect voter behaviour, approval ratings, and regional political dynamics. Consequently, the timing of declaration becomes a strategic consideration, balancing operational readiness with political optics.
Third, inconsistent messaging between central and provincial authorities can exacerbate public uncertainty. Conflicting statements regarding the scale of the disaster, available resources, or the adequacy of relief efforts may fuel political criticism and social unrest. National declaration, when carefully timed, provides a unified platform for communication, allowing authorities to present a coherent narrative and reassure the public that the state is in control.
Fourth, international scrutiny adds another layer of complexity. Global media coverage, humanitarian organisations, and foreign governments monitor the response to natural disasters. Delays in national recognition may lead to perceptions of poor governance or lack of commitment to human security, affecting Indonesia’s international reputation and potentially influencing foreign aid, investment, and diplomatic relations. Conversely, well-timed national recognition can enhance the country’s standing as a competent and responsive state.
Fifth, long-term public trust is closely linked to the effectiveness of initial responses. Rapid national recognition, combined with visible deployment of resources and transparent reporting, reinforces the credibility of state institutions. Conversely, protracted delays or perceived politicisation of disaster management may cultivate cynicism, distrust, and social tension, weakening the social contract between citizens and the state. Over time, this erosion of trust can impact compliance with future government directives, including disaster preparedness, public health measures, and policy implementation.
Finally, political risk management requires balancing urgency with credibility. While immediate recognition demonstrates responsiveness, premature declaration without logistical preparedness risks exposing operational weaknesses. Strategic timing aims to optimise both public perception and effective resource mobilisation, but miscalculations can have lasting political costs. In essence, the politics of disaster declaration is inseparable from governance legitimacy, public trust, and national reputation, highlighting the importance of carefully calibrated decision-making.
