Of photo-ops and grand-standing

What is it about politicians that makes them believe their presence at the scene of a recent catastrophe is essential? In all probability it is likely to be far from that if not unwelcome, being an intrusion to what is being done by the emergency services there.

Does a political leader really think turning up at a disaster site will help? It is more probable it will be a hindrance as extra security will have to be laid on, people found to escort the dignitary around the place and explain what is going on, together with facilities for the scores of journalists who will be accompanying the dignitary. And this latter is what it is all about really.

Over the years the media has taken it upon itself to chide leaders for not going to sites of accidents, but instead continuing with their routine work. Or, even worse, continuing with their holiday. Media expects a sympathetic voice from leaders, including scrambling among the ruins of devastation and looking profound.

When areas in the UK were seriously flooded during Prime Minister Gordon Brown's first year in office, he deemed it essential to break his holiday and supervise events. He got a lot of subsequent praise for that, so the effort was not wasted in either his eyes or those of the media. But surely the emergency services were all geared up to handle the situation competently, together will local officials and federal ministries? What added benefit did Brown's appearance give: none at all other than scoring a few "Brownie points" through photo opportunities and grand-standing for the media.

A more recent example is Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who cut short his holiday to go to the scene of the Spanair crash in Madrid, and later to the hospital where the few survivors had been sent. A nice photo-op for the Spanish media, if not the world press, but was his presence there really necessary? Wasn't it more of an inconvenience to those going about their work trying to extricate the bodies, care for the injured or determine the reason behind the crash?

With the prime minister standing in the background as an observer, what input would he be giving to the professionals already there, carrying out their trained duties? Wouldn't it be more likely that the appropriate government departments ministers and officials would be better at determining what was needed to speed the process along? If not, then why have those government departments, ministers and officials in the first place.

Tax-payers' money

Recently French President Nicholas Sarkozy visited Afghanistan, following the tragic deaths there of 10 French soldiers in an ambush by the Taliban. After visiting the flag-draped coffins of the soldiers, he went on to talk to Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. But Sarkozy was in Afghanistan for only five hours, which leads to the question why was all the tax-payers' money spent on such a short visit? Who was he trying to impress? The people or, as is more likely, the media?

But, not to be outdone by this bit of grand-standing, Brown also hopped on a plane for a short trip to Afghanistan and a bit of glad-handing and backslapping. It impresses very few but merely serves to interfere in areas which are already sensitive enough and which, with a limited number of troops on the ground, stretches their resources as they "serve and protect" their leader.

Let us not forget the Americans. George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice and myriad other senators like to spring surprises on the Iraqi government by giving no more than 10 minutes advance notice of their impending arrival. Forget about all those brave American soldiers fighting a war there, a more important detail has suddenly emerged: protecting their president/secretary of state or a few senators.

The political game of "being seen in all the right places" - publicity-wise - is universal. And because they are usually at the top of their political tree (or aspiring to be) there is no one to say their presence is not welcome as it will hinder what is being done.

But to perpetuate the myth of the necessity of their presence on site, political leaders make the effort because they fear being criticised by a virulent press, which will attack them for apparent indifference in not going. Claims that the leader was kept fully informed of events, and more than adequate professional help was on site, are dismissed by media who see an opportunity to chastise the politician, which is seen as much better fodder that praise.