Better normal for the urban poor
THE dark joke came as a wager on which would come first—the second wave or the second tranche. The wave meant any chance the Covid-19 cases could hit yet another tipping point, as though we’re off the first wave’s rumbling curl. The tranche, yes, the one that is yet to arrive, hopefully urgently and efficiently. Although, again, it may not be coming soon unless the first tranche would be properly accounted for by the respective local government units. That’s how government works.
The less privileged are the worst hit in this mad season. Government measures and protocols seem to show a deep dissonance to the lived experiences of poor communities. Most apparent during this quarantine period are the oblivious ways lockdowns are promptly pushed in affected urban poor villages without positioning a quick supply chain to address the basic needs of citizens. Many reportedly have yet to starve for days before food aid arrives. That, among other odds and ends, show not really a lack of genuine concern for the poor, we hope, but perhaps an unfortunate disconnect between the policy-makers to grass-root realities.
Coming early and rather comprehensively these days as we move to the “new normal” are guidelines for certain industries. The Department of Tourism, for instance, has very promptly released a memorandum to guide the accommodations establishments on the new nature of operations under this health crisis. Guidelines have been set for the reopening of restaurants and malls and comprehensive protocols have been laid out for the travel industry.
These are excellent and obviously well thought-out initiatives. Should the economy reinvigorate itself, it should err on the side of caution with public health in mind.
Well and good.
And, yet, from all the macro-thinking among our inspired policy-makers, the urban poor simply slips out of the equation, reinforcing yet another wave of inequality in the crisis management scheme.
A bottoms-up approach should be done as far as plotting the new normal is concerned. A think-tank under the circumstances must not exclusively be composed of individuals who are naïve about the plight of the poor.*