Improving the Crisis Management System. Between Pragmatism and Reality

Waldemar Kaak The Jacob of Paradies University in Gorzów Wielkopolski, Poland Improving the Crisis Management System. Between Pragmatism and Reality Summary The research presented in the article is devoted to issues concerning crisis man‑ agement system improvement. The emphasis and author’s focus concerns especially the training procedures providing the proper instructions for the specialists operating within it. Specifically, the practical training is named as the priority, and this includes the means of organizing exercises, and interaction within the crisis management system. The leg‑ islative process is also outlined, with the legal ambiguity of some statutory nature also exemplified. This correspondingly includes the assessment of the executory provisions sometimes determining the effective validation of the crisis management system. Keywords: crisis management, internal security, risk counteraction, specialized training The crisis managements system within the national security system Crisis management as a component of the national security governance has for many years played an important role in the functioning of state administration. Central, provincial, district and municipality tiers have proper units in charge of managing crisis situations, and likewise many other entities outside state admin‑ istration. Tasks assigned to crisis management and civil planning are detailed in the law of 26 April 2007 on Crisis Management1. They can be divided into plans – what is related to action methodology, drawing up documents, procedures, and organising – making the existing system effective, efficient and complete, and operational – for crisis situation or crisis pending. They are present in all phases of crisis management, beginning with prevention through preparations, responding and ending in restoration2. The range of tasks varies – the expansion is mainly due 1 2 Journal of Laws 2018.1401 of 23.07.2018. Cf. Falecki J., Dylematy zarządzania kryzysowego w Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, Sosnowiec 2016, p. 66. Studia Administracji i Bezpieczeństwa nr 5/2018 to changing legal environment and is based on current potential and factual threats. Within the contemporary security administering it is part of a packet for vari‑ ous types of public institutions operations; it is also being implemented by many corporate bodies. Naturally, there is no direct rapport between the quoted law pro‑ visions which are obligatory only for the state administration bodies3, nonetheless, the requisite to maintain required security standards is becoming a fundamental need in other than public institutions. Currently, an essential component of comprehensive approach to security concerns is interdisciplinary. The nature and a variable dynamics of occurring threats, are both crucial and major factors shaping the crisis management system flexibility, including atypical situations which have not been integrated into secu‑ rity management system with specific procedures. Of course, security requires that procedures are in place, but it has to be remembered that despite superficial similarities and objective approach to crisis events – its many different aspects, the procedures themselves will not bring expected loss reduction. Unquestionably, there is a need to evaluate and improve the crisis management system in a way that will correspond with the multi‍‑aspects or hybrid forms of occurring threats. Unification of the crisis managements system It is possible to achieve a required functionality of the crisis management system, provided that training and educating are implemented in due time. The main prin‑ cipal objective in its core activities is to seek perfection whereby managing and coordination of anti‍‑crisis action may bring optimal effects through minimisation of applied powers and measures with a simultaneous reduction of losses. The proper activity in a crisis situation affects the human safety, property or natural environ‑ ment protection, and is a multi‍‑dimensional in a sense of joint operations by all basic security services, including fire department and inspection authorities, as well as any other institution focused on threat recognition, control, and the minimisa‑ tion of possible loses. From that perspective the main presumptions of cooperation, as defined by J.A.F. Stoner, R.E. Freeman and D.R. Gilbert, are following: –– joint objectives; –– autonomy of the participants; –– voluntarism of tasks to be carried out; 3 76 Cf. Article 2 of the Law of 27 April 2007 on Crisis Management. Waldemar Kaak, Improving the Crisis Mangement System... –– implementation of own tasks, and provision for mutual assistance4. Joint objectives should not raise any questions, since cooperation of units must be in line with the crisis management plans, at all levels of joint operations, where the principal activity should be focused on safeguarding the broadly under‑ stood security. Moreover, the executory provisions that regulate the performance of the services, fire departments and inspection authorities, at the same time define their responsibilities in case of a threat or a crisis situation. This is the determinant of effective action within own competences, and at the same time a prerequisite for achieving proper goals. That the participants in crisis management system are autonomous is obvious, and is dictated by the law provisions governing their functioning. Natu‑ rally, safety nests determined in crisis management plans provide specific roles for proper institutions and particular threat occurrences. However, there is no superi‑ ority rule – no commanding prerogative and supremacy over the other associates in crisis management execution. Pragmatism of various crisis management activi‑ ties performed in the territory of Poland indicates that in practical terms the system works, as a result of the intended purpose. When form of an overcomed crisis becomes a fact, the assessment has to be made in respect to the principal rules of crisis management plans, where every individual management activities must be accounted for. Supervision in this case is to be understood as an authorisation to make decisions, including superior declaration of will determined by commanding factors, as well as assuming full responsibility for the decisions taken. Action man‑ agement seen this way is adequate to the course of the crisis occurrence, where time usually exerts pressure, a rising level of threats, and a surfacing deficit of powers and measures. Autonomy becomes thus a key element in anti‍‑crisis activi‑ ties, however, it may pose a potential risk of responsibilities becoming indistinct for the participants. This is a challenging aspect of the Polish system of crisis management, which is emphasised in literature on the subject, but which has not been sufficiently detailed by the law. It has to be stressed that the legislative task is not an easy one, and similar issues are encountered by all (...truncated)