Governing In Permanent Emergency: Why Crisis Has Become The New Normal

The international system was built on the implicit assumption of normalcy for many years. Stable times were thought to be the default state of world affairs, interspersed with sporadic crises that upset the status quo but were eventually resolved, such as wars, economic downturns, and pandemics. Institutions, models of governance, and diplomatic expectations were all influenced by this worldview. That presumption is no longer valid today.

Illustration by The Geostrata

Instead of going from crisis to recovery, the modern world is going through an ongoing cycle of disruption. Instead of happening one after the other, pandemics, wars, climate shocks, economic instability, and technological upheaval now coexist. As a result, instability is now structural rather than transient in the global environment. States are increasingly operating under the presumption that the next crisis is imminent rather than with the expectation of peace.

This change represents a fundamental change in the structure of governance, the exercise of power, and the acquisition of legitimacy. Crisis is now the norm rather than an exception to the global order.

TRANSITIONING FROM A PERMANENT EMERGENCY TO AN EXCEPTIONAL CRISIS

A turning point in contemporary governance was the COVID-19 pandemic. What started out as a public health emergency swiftly developed into a broad security crisis that had an impact on labor markets, supply chains, borders, and civil liberties. Lockdowns, surveillance tools, emergency legislation, and other extraordinary measures that would have been politically unimaginable in normal times were implemented by governments across ideological systems.

Importantly, the pre-crisis equilibrium was not restored after the pandemic ended. Rather, significant geopolitical shocks followed almost immediately.

Large-scale interstate conflict was brought back to Europe by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and open-ended violence with no obvious political solution persisted in West Asian conflicts. Global supply chains continued to be brittle, inflation skyrocketed, and geopolitical rivalry grew more intense.

These crises accumulated rather than taking the place of one another. A situation where several emergencies coexist, interact, and reinforce one another has emerged. Governance structures that were created to deal with isolated shocks are now under constant strain, requiring states to adjust to a situation in which emergencies are ongoing rather than transient.

HOW GOVERNANCE HAS CHANGED DUE TO THE CRISIS

The goals and practices of governance have been drastically changed by ongoing disruption. Short-term crisis management has increasingly eclipsed long-term planning, structural reform, and developmental vision. These days, governments are more concerned with maintaining continuity when shocks happen than they are with preventing them. Once enacted as temporary measures, emergency laws are often extended or normalised. In the name of efficiency and speed, decision-making has become more centralised, with executive branches gaining more power.

The urgency of crisis governance frequently outpaces institutional checks, public consultation, and parliamentary oversight. Political legitimacy is redefined in this context. Economic growth, welfare expansion, and reform agendas are no longer the main criteria used to evaluate governments. Rather, the capacity to act swiftly, uphold law and order, and avert systemic collapse is increasingly the source of legitimacy. Ideal policy results are no longer as valuable politically as effectiveness under duress.

SECURITY FIRST: THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE'S GROWTH

The scope of national security has significantly increased as crises proliferate. Domains that were previously considered civilian or economic are now seen from a security perspective. Infrastructure for public health is presented as a strategic asset. Reliability and accessibility are given precedence over long-term sustainability objectives in energy policy. National stability is becoming more closely associated with supply chains, water management, and food security.

The central focus of this evolving National Security Framework is technology. Where once Artificial Intelligence, Data Infrastructure, Cyber Capabilities and Semiconductors were considered neutral, today they are classified as essential elements of State Power and State Vulnerability. The ability of a country to maintain functionality during crises, whether war, economic failure, or information control, is determined by its control of these technologies.

As a result, more Governmental intervention is occurring within markets via Export Controls, Industrial Policies, and Regulatory Regimes to not only promote innovation within the country, but also to diminish the potential for strategic dependence and to mitigate potential exposure to unforeseen events originating from external sources. The logic of a perpetual emergency is reflected in this securitisation of policy.

Rapidity, control, redundancy, and protection from outside shocks are all rewarded by crisis governance. Although this strategy increases short-term resilience, it also runs the risk of strengthening centralisation, eroding institutional transparency, and reducing the area available for democratic discussion.

HANDLING CONFLICT INSTEAD OF RESOLVING IT

Permanent disruption in geopolitics has led to managed rather than resolved wars. There are fewer and fewer clear-cut wins or amicable resolutions in today's conflicts. Rather, they are frozen, prolonged, or contained to prevent escalation while gradually wearing down opponents.

This is a reflection of a larger strategic environment where risk management takes the place of conflict resolution, and stability is no longer achievable. In a world characterized by constant urgency, international institutions, which are built for predictable and rules-based cooperation, find it difficult to function effectively.

THE PERSISTENCE OF INSTABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

This period of disruption will continue due to climate change. Climate shocks, in contrast to conventional crises, worsen rather than go away. Threat multipliers that exacerbate political and economic vulnerabilities include extreme weather, water scarcity, food insecurity, and migration brought on by climate change.

Climate stress is a permanent condition of governance for many states, especially in the Global South, which undermines the prospect of returning to a stable baseline and reinforces the shift toward emergency management.

RESILIENCE AS THE CONTEMPORARY INDICATOR OF POWER

Thus, it can be stated that resilience has triumphed over military superiority and the capability to dominate the global order and is now the principal measure of sovereignty. Countries that exhibit the ability to absorb uncertain occurrences, respond rapidly, and maintain their unitary structure through various crises have a competitive advantage to those countries that rely on predictability to ensure their survival.

It appears that mid-tier states that employ flexible strategies are better equipped to exploit opportunities presented by this changing environment than those with inflexible commitments and overextension in multiple conflicts. Performance-based measures related to governance are becoming more important than average long-term development.

The world is not merely going through an exceptionally turbulent period, nor is it plunging into chaos. Rather, a structural shift is taking place in international politics. Instead of being a brief departure from normalcy, the crisis has evolved into a governing framework.

Ideally, states are expected to be stable throughout time; however, in today’s society, this ideal has taken on the form of perpetual disruption, thus prioritising the state’s function as an entity that promotes and provides for its citizens with continuity rather than optimisation and resilience, rather than efficiency. The ability of modern governments to provide crisis management as a core function of the state has changed the structure of the way in which states exercise power and determine the basis of legitimacy.

The judgment of governments will primarily be based on their capacity to manage and absorb crises, support their internal cohesion, and prevent collapse, rather than a government’s ability to create long-term developmental outcomes. The expectation of predictability has been replaced with crisis as the dominant focal point for how states are governed, how they adapt to changing situations, and how they continue to survive.

---

BY MUSKAN GUPTA

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com