Ellias Aghili Dehnavi - Who Handles It Better?

Copyright 2020 Ellias Aghili Dehnavi, Msc. Regional Studies, Northern American Countries, Allameh Tabatabai University

Publisher: tredition GmbH, Halenreie 40-44, 22359 Hamburg, Germany

Printed on demand in many countries

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher.

A Comparative Study of Crisis Management between Authoritarian Socialist Countries and Liberal Democratic Countries regarding the Corona Virus Pandemic

To Schmitt plus sohn elevator team, who did handle the condition better than anyone else!

Abstract

In different societies, different models of crisis management are used to deal with the crisis, which is completely influenced by the political system that governs these societies. With the widespread prevalence of the corona virus, different views have been propounded about the capabilities of different political systems, which are still the subject of debates. The fundamental question that has been raised and examined in this context is how the crisis management in authoritarian socialist countries can be evaluated in comparison with liberal liberal countries? The present research is a descriptive-analytical and the mentioned question has been investigated using the library method. The results of the study indicate that it is not simply possible to distinguish between crisis management of democratic states and authoritarian regimes. Liberal democracies, however, mainly try to use a community-based approach to deal with crises. These systems try to manage crises while paying attention to economic well-being and respecting citizens rights, but the widespread outbreak of the corona has shown that in many cases liberal democracies have not acted fairly and the working classes are still forced work in order to turn the wheel of their countries economy. Of course, the socialist approach of these governments in supporting different classes of people is worth considering. In general, liberal democracies have not been as successful as they should have been in dealing with the Corona virus crisis. On the other hand, although authoritarian socialist regimes such as China were able to control the crisis of the Corona outbreak, but they have been criticized for lack of respect for individual rights, absence of strong protectionist policies, and Police actions. However, European liberal democracies, including Italy, France, and Spain, have chosen the difficult solution of global quarantine as the worlds largest authoritarian powers, like China, have puts it to action.

Keywords: Crisis, Crisis Management, Authoritarian Socialist Countries, Liberal Democratic Countries, Corona Virus, Covid-19

Statement of the Problem

As the worlds population grows and resources dwindle, societies become increasingly vulnerable to disasters. The number of people affected by disasters from 1999-2007 has risen from 60 million in 1999 to 380 million in 2007. (World Heath organization, 2008) According to the Global Disaster Report in 2003, between 1993 till 2002, 5,402 major natural and man-made disasters were recorded all over the world, affecting 2,496,800 people and causing $ 663,749 million pecuniary loss. (Walters WC,2004)

For this reason, different societies are constantly trying to invent or they are looking for and solutions to be able to control or minimize the damage caused by unforeseen events, and in fact manage disasters and crises. Crisis management plays a crucial role in reducing the pecuniary loss and human damage of crises. This has become the centre of attention more than ever, following the spread of the coronavirus. The spread and global epidemic of the corona virus created an opportunity for crisis management of different countries with different political systems to be discussed. Because a more appropriate response has been associated with a reduction in injuries and a reduction in the number of sufferers and victims of the virus. The main question raised in this study is that how the crisis management in authoritarian socialist countries can be evaluated in comparison with liberal liberal countries? In order to study and answer the question, first the concept of crisis and crisis management is explained and then the authoritarian socialist countries and liberal democracies are examined and then, the reaction of these countries to crises and with emphasis on the coronavirus crisis is reviewed and finally the conclusion is expressed.

Crisis Management

This section examines the concept and objectives of crisis management.

The concept of crisis management

Crisis management is an applied science that by systematic observation of crises and their analysis is looking for a tool that by which prevent crises and if their effects are reduced, make it possible to have rapid relief preparedness and improvement of the situation (Kazemi 2002). In fact, crisis management is the process of reducing the risk of accidents using anti-crisis resources in an efficient and effective way, and despite the various factors that exist in estimating the risk, it is believed that the presence of risk can be decresed by increasing management capacity and managers can design a crisis management executive plan (at each of the various regional and national levels) with the help of technology (Rastegar and Ajami, 2005). Such programs, in addition to executive instructions, should clearly define the decision-making process for crisis managers and thus support them in making decisions in crisis situations (Fiqhami Farahmand, 1992). This point indicates that the crisis and its management include a series of interconnected and continuous activities (Taslimi, 2005). However, management of crisis and management in crisis are two separate and interrelated categories, so that the former precedes the latter because it is not only the crisis that determines the damage, but also the level of readiness in appropriate responding to the crisis by those involved is important and any negligence will widen the scope of the crisis and cause more damage. Accordingly, the delicacy of managers reaction in controlling crisis situations is an art whose main essence is knowledge, experience and skill. If the crisis can be managed properly, it will lead to very successful results, and for this purpose, the flow of progress can be targeted in the usual way. It can also be expected to control matters in the shortest possible time in order to reduce the damage caused by the crisis (Rastegar and Ajami, 2005).

Crisis management involves anticipating and planning, directing employees, and collaborating in order to manage the crisis (Lalonde & Roux-Dufort 2013, NyBlom 2003). Crisis management considers the five components of organization, communication, decision making, identifying crisis factors, and designing. Crisis management also means proper planning of being ready for crisis (Rezaei Dolatabadi et al. 2013). Crisis management is a systematic and dynamic process that involves prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery (1998 Fink 1986, Milis & Van de Walle 2007, Spillan & Crandall 2002, Pauchant & Mitroff 1990, Preble 1997; Pearson & Clair). Based on what has been said in the present study, crisis management is a set of executive activities and managerial and political decisions related to different stages and all levels of crisis, in order to save, reduce losses and damage, avoid interrupting life, production and services, maintaining communications, preserving the environment, and finally repairing and rebuilding damage.