Integrating Ubuntu: embedding African philosophy into disaster risk reduction and management

Le résumé fourni par la source

Disasters, whether natural, socio-natural, or anthropogenic, are not merely technical challenges but deeply political and cultural phenomena shaped by historical and ideological contexts. In Southern Africa, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRMM) has long been dominated by global, technocratic frameworks that sideline indigenous knowledge systems. Yet, as climate hazards intensify, the limitations of infrastructure-centric approaches become evident, demanding a shift toward culturally grounded resilience strategies. This opinion piece argues that integrating Ubuntu 1 , an African philosophy emphasizing communality, reciprocity, and shared humanity, into DRRM offers a transformative alternative to Western-centric models. While Ubuntu has influenced postcolonial governance and justice, its potential in disaster risk governance remains overlooked. The opinion piece challenges universalist risk paradigms and advocates for decolonized, participatory disaster governance where resilience emerges not from institutional power alone, but from the moral and social fabric of communities.Disasters are frequently framed as "natural" occurrences, yet an expanding body of interdisciplinary scholarship has established that their root causes are largely social, political, and economic. Rather than being the direct result of physical hazards, disasters emerge through socially constructed systems of vulnerability shaped by governance failures, structural inequalities, and historical injustices (Blaikie et al., 2014;Tierney, 2014;Gaillard, 2010). Smith (2007) characterizes disasters as a product of a "social calculus" in which race, class, gender, and spatial exclusion determine exposure and outcomes. Similarly, Chimutina and Von Meding (2019) argue that the true disaster lies not in the hazard itself but in unsafe urban systems, failed policies, and planning deficits. In this sense, the use of the term "natural disaster" has been critiqued as obscuring the role of human agency and accountability (Von Meding, 2021).These critiques are especially relevant in the African context, where disaster risk is tightly interwoven with legacies of colonialism, land dispossession, spatial inequality, and socio-economic marginalisation (Holloway et al., 2013;Paudel et al., 2021). In countries across the Southern African Development Community (SADC), communities continue to experience cyclical floods, droughts, and cyclones, which are exacerbated by underinvestment in risk reduction, weak institutional coordination, and uneven development (Manyena et al., 2011;Mavhura et al., 2017). For example, climate-induced hazards in Mozambique, Malawi, and Zimbabwe have disproportionately affected low-income and peri-urban communities that are often excluded from early warning systems and post-disaster recovery (Nhamo et al., 2021). As such, disasters in the region must be understood not as environmental shocks alone, but as the outcome of intersecting socio-political systems.Despite this, dominant DRRM frameworks in many African states remain largely technocratic, modelled on global policy regimes and reliant on vertical, state-driven approaches. These systems emphasize institutional reforms, hazard monitoring, and infrastructure development, often without adequately integrating local realities, participatory knowledge, or culturally embedded risk management practices (van Niekerk et al., 2015;Coppola, 2021). This top-down orientation is 1 Ubuntu in deep African thinking is a profound life philosophy, ethical compass, social practice, and political framework that emphasises that our humanity is inextricably tied to the humanity of others. It is a living knowledge system that continues to shape African responses to governance, conflict, education, disaster resilience, and collective well-being. At its core, Ubuntu is best captured by the isiZulu/Xhosa phrase: "Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu" -"A person is a person through other persons."symptomatic of what Gaillard (2010) calls "epistemological colonialism," the privileging of Western scientific models over indigenous and community-based knowledge systems.One critically underutilised paradigm in this regard is Ubuntu, a relational African philosophy that emphasises mutual care, interdependence, and communal responsibility (Mugumbate et al., 2024). Ubuntu frames resilience not merely as a technical or institutional output, but as a moral and collective obligation (Shawa, 2024). It challenges the individualistic assumptions of dominant DRRM models by centering solidarity, ethical reciprocity, and shared vulnerability. Empirical studies from South Africa and Mozambique have shown that communities grounded in Ubuntu practices often rely on mutual aid networks, intergenerational oral histories, and participatory rituals to prepare for and respond to disasters (Manyena, 2006). These practices not only enhance psychosocial recovery and community cohesion but also reinforce a sense of ethical responsibility for collective survival. Furthermore, international examples, such as Cuba's community-embedded disaster model, demonstrate that socially embedded, equity-driven DRRM systems can outperform resourceintensive, technocratic models in terms of preparedness and adaptive capacity (Suárez-Medina et al., 2021). In a similar vein, Ubuntu offers a context-specific and ideologically resonant framework that complements physical infrastructure with ideological investment, building resilience through both tangible systems and intangible values (Mann, 2012;Loftus, 2020).Against this backdrop, this opinion piece argues that DRRM in Southern Africa must be reconceptualised not only through the lens of state capacity and technocratic efficiency but also through the ideological and cultural systems that shape how risk is understood, communicated, and governed. African states, particularly in the SADC region, should not be treated solely as infrastructural actors but as socio-natural entities formed through discursive, cultural, and political processes.Thus, the key questions are how Ubuntu and African ideology inform DRRM practices, and what is the role of ideological power in shaping disaster risk governance in Africa and SADC member states?This opinion piece adopts a qualitative, interpretive research design rooted in African relational epistemologies and critical disaster studies to interrogate how disaster experiences in Southern Africa are culturally mediated. Grounded in the interpretivist view that reality is socially constructed and shaped by lived experience (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2013), the study frames Ubuntu not only as a normative philosophy but as an evolving social practice that informs communal resilience. Interpretations of Ubuntu as told through oral narratives, communal rituals, and political discourse reveal how communities negotiate meaning in the face of crisis (Mugumbate & Nyanguru, 2013;Mugumbate & Chereni, 2020;Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018). Integrating over 30 scholarly sources, including peer-reviewed literature, SADC policy documents, and African philosophical texts, the analysis builds a textured understanding of locally grounded disaster governance.This approach is further informed by the authors' diverse professional backgrounds in education and disaster risk management, enabling a cross-sectoral perspective on the issues under discussion. Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 2013) was applied to state and institutional texts, while thematic analysis (Kupika et al., 2019) identified patterns in community-based narratives and indigenous knowledge systems. The piece also draws on relational ethics (McCubbin & Moniz, 2014), privileging reciprocity, contextual sensitivity, and epistemic justice. In doing so, it aligns with calls for research that braids Ubuntu with Indigenous knowledge to more effectively interpret DRRM issues (Huambachano, 2018;Scarano, 2024;IPCC, 2019). Ultimately, this approach challenges dominant Eurocentric disaster gover

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.