When the conditions of "emergency" become the "normal" routine of the country

In a society where emergency decisions appear one after another, where is the line between "crisis management" and "life in crisis"?

In public life, a crisis usually begins with a signal: an urgent decision, a temporary order, or a change that is supposed to control the situation for a short time. But the problem starts from the point where "temporary" is extended many times and the decision taken to pass a certain situation slowly becomes a part of the normal order of the society. The recent change in the working hours of executive agencies and banks is a remarkable example of this situation.

According to the announced circular, the working hours of the headquarters, provincial units and banks from 1 Mehr 1405 until the end of the year are set from 8:00 am to 1:00 pm and the stated goal is to manage energy consumption, maintain the stability of the electricity and gas network, and continue providing services. This decision can be considered a management action for the existing conditions. But there is a more important question behind it: in a society where emergency decisions appear one after another, where is the line between "crisis management" and "life in crisis"?

No government in the face of a crisis can behave like normal days. Energy crisis, war, infrastructure disruption or resource limitation naturally require different decisions. The problem is not the principle of emergency decision; The problem arises when the emergency becomes a recurring situation. If the change of working hours is made for a few weeks, the citizen considers it a temporary measure.

But when the same decisions are repeated many times, the mind of the society adjusts itself with them. Working hours change, the way to go to the office changes, the transportation schedule changes, and even businesses have to adapt their work schedule to new decisions. In this situation, the crisis is no longer just an "event"; It becomes a factor for the gradual redesign of daily life.

A cost that is not seen in the circular table

Every administrative decision has side effects in addition to its direct result. Reducing office attendance hours may reduce energy consumption, but at the same time, it can limit citizens' access to face-to-face services or create costs for some groups. A mother who has to take time off from work for an office job, a worker who cannot come in during reduced hours, or a business owner who has to visit multiple times for an office service, each pays part of the cost of this change.

For this reason, the evaluation of emergency policies should not be done with only one index. Reducing energy consumption is a goal, but maintaining fair access of citizens to public services is also a goal. If working hours are to be reduced, the infrastructure of non-attendance services, telephone answering and the speed of administrative affairs should be strengthened at the same time. Otherwise, part of the cost of crisis management will be transferred from the government to the citizen.

From the point of view of public law, the importance of the issue is that management decisions should not be seen only from the perspective of administrative efficiency. In normal and abnormal conditions, the government is still faced with citizens who need to receive public services. Therefore, any time limit or enforcement should have some clear questions: What is its legal basis? How long is it in place? What is the criterion of its end? What institution evaluates its works? And for those who are affected by this change, what is the alternative solution? These questions are not formal.

The more emergency decisions are made, the greater the need to be accountable for them. Emergency should not mean closing the logic of monitoring, evaluation and accountability.

A society that gets used to "special conditions".

Perhaps the most important effect of long-term crises is not the crisis itself; Rather, it is to accustom the society to the crisis. A society that regularly faces changes in working hours, restrictions on consumption, disruption of services, changes in daily schedules and temporary decisions, gradually loses the expectation of stability. The citizen no longer knows whether the program announced today is a temporary decision or is going to continue for a few months. This situation, more than an administrative issue, is a matter of trust and predictability.

Social life becomes meaningful with clear rules. People plan, businesses invest, and families make decisions because they assume tomorrow will be somewhat like today. The lower this predictability, the higher the decision-making cost for everyone.

No society is immune from crisis. The main issue is how to overcome the crisis. Emergency decisions can maintain their real function when they have a clear purpose, basis, scope and end. If a temporary decision is continuously extended, it can no longer be considered a short-term reaction; The reason for its continuation and its long-term effects should also be answered.

Today, more than ever, Iran needs a policy that differentiates between "immediate" and "permanent". A crisis requires a quick decision; But the administration of the country, a sustainable program. The problem starts when every new crisis is answered with a new exception and the set of these exceptions becomes the normal order of the country.

Perhaps the most important question these days is this: are we just managing the crisis or are we slowly learning how to live in a crisis? If the answer is the second, the issue is no longer just office hours. Then we should talk about a society in which the "temporary situation" is no longer temporary and people, businesses and institutions are forced to adjust their lives based on instability. No matter how big the crisis is, it should not become a normal situation; Because a society that gets used to emergency may one day not know exactly where the border between the exception and the rule is.