[Blog] Cyclone warnings: a charge for a courageous Prime Minister

Democracy Watch urges clearer cyclone warning responsibilities, like in Réunion, where citizens are accountable. It criticizes Mauritius’ infantilization, calls for localized risk management, and stresses individual responsibility in adverse weather conditions.

For the umpteenth time, Democracy Watch reminds us that, in our humble opinion, the responsibility for the public issuance of Class 3 cyclone warnings (prohibition of movement, whether on foot or by car) should fall to the Prime Minister or, at a pinch, to his office - just as that of Class 2 should fall to the Minister of Education (closure or non-closure of schools), with or without recommendations from the national committee on disaster risk management. 

Let us take the example of Réunion, where the Prefect leads and makes the necessary decisions after consulting the parties concerned. There are penalties and a police warning, stipulating that anyone who ignores them does so at their own risk. They should not count on the State to help them in the event of a problem. 

There, citizens are made responsible. Here, they are infantilized by a weak government that is anxious to please any lobby, no matter how small or unrepresentative.

We must give our weather station the benefit of the doubt that its warnings for Garance were still based on climate science, even though we had to endure more than 48 hours of traffic bans for nothing or next to nothing, due to a Class 3 warning. 

Let’s not confuse weather science with panic. It is unhealthy to enforce a regulation (Class 3 and traffic ban) if we are not able to ensure its implementation. Indeed, such a warning is laughable when the sun is shining and not a single breeze stirs the leaves. This Class 3 warning then becomes an invitation to go to the seaside. 

In Réunion, one might almost accuse the Prefect of delaying too long in applying the red alert. But that would be wrong because, as soon as the orange alert (equivalent to our Class 1 and 2 warnings) is issued, every responsible adult in Réunion must know what steps to take to protect their loved ones and their property without waiting for the red alert –by which time it would be too late. The individual must fully assume their responsibilities. They have no right to make the community responsible for their misfortunes when they themselves are the primary culprits of their catastrophic negligence. In the event of misfortune, they only have themselves to blame.

Let us distinguish the risks of cyclones from those of torrential rains and strong swells. Cyclones affect the entire island and its population. Torrential rains pose both national and strictly localized

risks.Automobile travel, even if restricted (limited to one’s place of residence), must be carried out with full awareness that rain, fog, or slippery roads do not necessarily constitute a major risk. In case of doubt, prudence dictates staying at home and waiting for better weather before making the journey. This highlights the responsibility of company heads who force their employees to work far from home when torrential rains threaten. 

That being said, the possibility of torrential rains has a regional scope when it threatens only certain people – mainly those living in low-lying areas or along a watercourse (river, canal, drain, often with questionable maintenance)—while sparing those living on high ground. While the Prime Minister has authority over the entire population in the case of a cyclone, he cannot exercise the same responsibility on a regional level due to the presence of microclimates – hence the need for regional predictions. 

Given the public infrastructure and institutions in place, Democracy Watch believes that the highest-ranking police official in each district and city should be responsible for ordering the necessary precautions and ensuring their enforcement. However, they must also be thoroughly familiar with the district under their responsibility.

Even more laughable are the instructions concerning strong swells. The lack of precision is astounding. What exactly does “the ban on going out to sea” mean? Does it concern bathing in a peaceful lagoon? Taking a sea trip within an always peaceful lagoon? Strong swells pose a threat to only a small percentage of inhabitants (one or two percent). Should this risk justify a national ban when no authority is able to monitor its compliance? For such a localized danger, a similarly localized regulation should be enacted – but with the necessary strict surveillance.

From an early age, every future citizen must learn the meaning of the expression “at your own risk.”

Democracy Watch Mauritius