Cyclone Nargis ripped through Myanmar, leaving 22,500 dead and a million homeless. But there may be another casualty. The military junta is right in worrying that its authoritarian control may end. It has been forced to request international aid, even though it fears more pro-democracy demonstrations. Is there a link between a natural disaster and a regime change? Do authoritarian regimes mismanage disasters?

Amartya Sen’s study stated that famines are less likely to occur in democracies because of a free press that disseminates information and fixes accountability. Authoritarian systems with press censorship are more likely to experience recurring famines. In Myanmar, despite early warnings from India, the military junta telecast limited warnings that failed to reach the danger zone with little or no access to TV.

As geographers Pelling and Dill point out, socio-political and cultural dynamics put into motion at the time of catastrophic “natural” disasters create the conditions for potential political change: “A state’s incapacity to respond adequately to a disaster can create a temporary power vacuum... This generates (albeit temporarily) a window of opportunity for novel socio-political action...” For instance, Mexico and Nicaragua saw changes in their political regimes after the mismanagement of natural disasters.

So the junta is right to be worried about the cyclone’s impact. Demonstrations led by Buddhist monks last year forced the regime to slowly move down the path to democratisation. The junta is trying to democratise, keeping the military the puppet master. The draft constitution is geared to protect military dominance; the constitution reserves several cabinet seats for the military and one-quarter of the seats in both houses of parliament. It also keeps out the main pro-democracy figure Aung San Suu Kyi through a clause.

A referendum will be held on a draft constitution, which is supposed to pave the way for elections promised in 2010. The draft calls for a multi-party system in which the military will retain key powers. Despite the cyclone, the junta plans to hold the referendum on May 10, but human rights activists ask: How can one have a referendum when people are dying or missing? The opposition has asked citizens to vote “no” to the constitution while the junta has run a media campaign saying “vote yes” because it is a “national duty”.

Two scenarios can play out in Myanmar: the first, a more likely one, is where the junta reverts to its repressive tactics. In the aftermath of the cyclone, one may see a resurgence of demonstrations over the mismanagement of relief work. Hungry crowds of cyclone victims may storm shops as the junta delays international volunteers by refusing them visas and access. This would drive the country back to its international pariah status, leading to more deprivation for its people — in 2005, Myanmar’s per capita GDP was $217, placing it among the 20 poorest countries in the world.

The second scenario is more optimistic. Disasters can heal deep divisions. The 2004 tsunami saw Aceh separatists reach a peace accord with the Indonesian government, although it didn’t have the same effect on the LTTE. This scenario would see a window open for a political arrangement acceptable to both the junta and the opposition.

But this requires pro-active moves by three sets of actors: first, the junta has to be open to international aid and work with locals (including dissidents). Second, the pro-democracy protesters have to engage with their oppressors. The military is the only functioning institution. The pro-democracy protesters have a handful of factors in their favour. First of all, they have a strong rallying figure in Aung San. Secondly, shifts to democracy by regional states like Nepal, Bhutan and Pakistan may boost their morale. Finally, the international community is on their side, since the United States and others have been calling for a regime change for years. These factors, in conjunction with cyclone relief, could help some form of national reconciliation.

Third, regional actors like China, Thailand and India have a role. While there are severe obstacles to international involvement in Myanmar the rehabilitation work may allow more collaboration. The US, which had imposed sanctions in 1988, was quick to offer help. The regional actors have to ensure that the opportunity is utilised by the junta by providing incentives for collaboration and making a return to international isolation more expensive for the junta. The cyclone could well act as a catalyst for political change.

The writer is a fellow at the Centre for Policy Research

express@expressindia.com