The tragedies caused by the Kristin and Leonardo depressions remind us of the obvious: a catastrophe is, by definition, exceptional. The error is not in the existence of the phenomenon, but in our insistence on ignoring it. No matter how prepared a country is, nature always retains its margin of unpredictability. The challenge is not to eliminate risk, but to reduce it and ensure the ability to recover quickly and effectively when the inevitable happens.
Much of the damage observed is not just the result of the force of the elements, but of persistent failures in planning, supervision and risk culture. We continue to allow construction in vulnerable areas, accepting works without quality and minimum resistance. Our temperate climate has accustomed us to designing for the rule, never for the exception. When the exception arrives, the price is paid in lives, property and trust.
In catastrophe situations, the command line is the axis of the response. Nothing can be improvised. It is essential that plans are defined, tested and internalized, and that everyone knows their role. Redundancy, discipline and clarity of communication are not technical details, they are conditions for collective survival.
This responsibility lies with the National Emergency and Civil Protection Authority (ANEPC) and its President, under the political supervision of the Minister of Internal Administration. These roles require more than technical competence or political sensitivity; require proven operational experience in command, control, communication and crisis management. In extreme moments, the country needs leaders who make decisions under pressure, not office managers.
Communication is the heart of operational coordination and social stabilization. If security and emergency forces do not communicate because networks fail, we are facing a structural failure of sovereignty. A reliable, resilient and redundant communications system is not an expense. It is an investment in national security, public health and human lives. Any delay in this area compromises the State’s ability to fulfill its mission.
Despite the weaknesses of the system, the Portuguese people once again demonstrated their well-known resilience. In the midst of chaos, mutual help and the ability to adapt emerged as always. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about some political leaders and part of the media, who, instead of informing, preferred to inflame.
While some looked for a stage and flashesacting out gestures of help more interested in the effect than the substance, others displayed blatant unpreparedness, for life and for the profession. The role of journalism in a crisis is to inform rigorously, not to dramatize for immediate consumption.
In times of crisis, less is more. Goodwill does not replace competence. What is required of leaders is courage, professionalism and rigor. Media presence is useless if it is not accompanied by a single, coordinated voice. Appearing for the sake of appearing is amateurism. Appearing in dissonance is out of control. And anyone who turns tragedy into a scenario for personal advancement only reveals opportunism.
The country was caught by surprise once. Secondly, he apologizes. Thirdly, structural change is required. Portugal cannot continue to learn only after the tragedy. It is time to act on the risk, before the exception becomes the rule.
Leave a Reply