Leaders attending disaster areas .

[modeller]

We often see leaders of countries criticised for not rushing to the scene of disasters.
The most recent being President Obama and the president of Pakistan. Is that fair criticism ?
There maybe diplomatic and phychological reasons but what is the practical value of their presence.?
I remember a senior aid officer saying a few years back that he hoped they kept away as it diverted hundreds of personnel and helicopters and transport away from the scene , which could be put to better use. He added " Frankly they just get in the way and don't know what they are talking about ".

[Gromit]

Each case has it's own set of circumstances, but as a rule they should go. It highlights the plight of the survivors and helps raise awareness and donations.

There was not much criticism of Obama, he rushed to the Gulf if Mexico pretty sharpish, aroutou thinking of Dubya who had to be dragged to New Orleans?

There is a difference when the Prime Minister scarpers to another country when his people need him most. That is very poor.

[birdie1971]

There is no real practical value for a leader to be at a disaster site. However, if they don't go it appears as though they're indifferent to the plight of their fellow citizens which is never a good career move if you're a politician.

[Buenchico]

Which particular Prime Minister would Gromit be referring to?

If it's the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Yousaf Raza Gillani hasn't 'scarpered' anyway. He's working hard to find ways of dealing with his country's problems.

Meanwhile the President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, is concerning himself with more long-term issues, such as the fight against terrorism.

Which means that they're both carrying out their constitutional duties.

Chris

PS: I also think that it's completely pointless for any political leader to visit the scene of any disaster. In these days of electronic communications, anything that a political leader can do can be done from anywhere in the world but it might still be best if he simply stays in his own office, from where he has the quickest access to advisers who really know what's going on and, hopefully, also know how to deal with it.

[birdie1971]

The public's view of things like this seems to be, if the leader isn't actually there at 'ground zero' than they can't fully appreciate the scale and human cost of such disasters. I think there's something to be said for this.

When you watch a disaster (man-made or natural) on television, you're physically and (to a large degree) mentally detached from the horror. There really is nothing quite like viewing something with your own eyes. The best example of this I can give is from my own life. When I was a police officer, the first time I attended a road traffic collision I was confronted with a mangled human body. Nothing in my life had prepared me for this experience. I naively thought that because I'd seen horror films, surgical procedures, graphic news reports, etc. on TV, I'd be absolutely fine when I came face to face with the real deal.

I was wrong. Completely wrong. Nothing can prepare you for the reality of such an event.


I think many people are aware of this fact, either unconsciously or consciously, and therefore place a great deal of importance on the leader of a nation being at a disaster site so that they can both see and smell the reality of the situation.

[anotheoldgit]

The people of the East-end were appreciative when King George VI and Queen Elizabeth visited them after one particular air raid, especially when they could prove they were all in the same boat, seeing that Buckingham Palace had also been hit.

I suppose it is all a matter of helping to keep up moral

[ludwig]

It's of no practical value whatsoever, but it shows you care, and that's quite important.