A government of amateurs. Crisis management is perhaps the most demanding test of competence for any administration. And so far, the government of Nikos Christodoulides appears to be repeatedly failing in this field. Not because it has faced unpredictable situations but because many of these could have been prevented or at least contained.
The latest example is the crisis involving foot and mouth disease. In a country with a strong livestock sector and clear public health risks, given that cases of foot and mouth disease in the occupied areas were known, prevention, inspections and biosecurity protocols cannot operate in a piecemeal fashion.
Once again, the response seems to come after the fact, with reassuring statements and communication tactics instead of timely mobilisation.
Unfortunately, the Christodoulides government has built a negative record in crisis management. Indicative examples include the rise in crime linked to organised criminal activity, the devastating wildfires in the Limassol mountain area and, at the start of its term, the incidents of violence against migrants in Limassol. In all these cases, the state appeared to be running behind events. The absence of a preventive strategy, the lack of operational readiness and the inability to coordinate services form a worrying pattern.
The issue is mainly political. In an environment of heightened uncertainty, whether geopolitical, economic or social, citizens need a state that conveys seriousness and professionalism. Instead, they see a government that invests more in managing its image than in managing risk.
In this climate, the President chose yesterday to invite unions and social organisations to the Presidential Palace, offering symbolic gestures and promises of pension increases and higher social spending.
No one disputes the need for social policy. However, when it appears as a counterweight to a series of failures in crisis management, social policy becomes a tool of communication distraction. Citizens do not see a coherent plan of governance.
The insistence on after the fact communication management intensifies the sense of insecurity. The state appears to be run by amateurs, without a culture of prevention and without a plan for adverse scenarios.
And when failure in crisis management becomes repetitive, the problem is no longer the circumstances but the governance itself.