“These are only three provinces out of 38 provinces, so the situation is under control.”
A statement that sounds technical, neutral, controlled, and even rational. Yet in disaster governance, such a sentence can become a political shortcut, that one that delays responsibility, suspends response, and reduces the complexity of disaster.
Three of the 38 provinces may appear small and pose no serious threat. However, the statement risks obscuring the fact that citizens are still suffering, going hungry, losing their homes and livelihoods due to disaster. It cannot be denied that even a disaster in a single province can paralyze a local economy and push communities into poverty, without ever being recognized as a national crisis.
In situations like this, numbers do not merely function as measurement tools; they determine fate. As of February 15, 2026, the Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (BNPB) reported 1,205 fatalities caused by floods and landslides, with 74,830 people displaced and 139 individuals still missing.
Will the President compare the number of disaster victims in Sumatra to the total population of Indonesia? Hopefully not, because such an approach would further distance the government from the lived reality of victims’ suffering.
It does not stop there. The Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM), Bahlil Lahadalia, also used percentages to simplify the situation. As of December 7, he stated that electricity had been restored to 93 percent of Aceh. This figure appears significant and suggests that almost all of Aceh is free of power outages. However, the remaining 7% constitutes an “information debt” owed to the public.
Recent updates show that although electricity in Banda Aceh has been fully restored since December 18, four regencies, Aceh Tamiang, Bener Meriah, Gayo Lues, and Aceh Tengah, are still experiencing disruptions, including rolling blackouts that affect access to clean water, food storage, and health services.
Furthermore, the minister’s report that 90 percent of priority substations have been restored is encouraging, yet it raises questions about the remaining percentage. As a result, remote areas such as Aceh Tamiang, which are still grappling with flash floods, become invisible, with residents enduring days without electricity, worsening conditions for displaced communities and hampering aid distribution.
How Can the Status Be Elevated to a National Disaster?
We must acknowledge that the government appears insufficiently prepared to handle this disaster, even if it is reluctant to admit its limited capacity. By definition, a national disaster is an event with a wide-ranging impact across the country. Referring to Law No. 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management, the government has the authority to determine disaster emergency status.
Article 51 paragraph (2) stipulates that national disaster status is determined by the President, while provincial-scale disasters are determined by the Governor, and district/city-scale disasters by the Mayor or Regent.
What is the procedure for elevating disaster status from provincial to national level? First, when provincial-level handling exceeds local capacity, the governor may formally notify the President of the inability to manage the disaster. Second, within 24 hours, relevant ministries coordinate with BNPB and supervisory agencies to hold a meeting to determine the national disaster status. Third, the Head of BNPB, together with related ministries or agencies, may take further action for disaster response.
The Governor of Aceh, Muzakir Manaf, officially extended the Emergency Response Status for hydrometeorological disasters (floods and landslides) until December 25, 2025. Similarly, West Sumatra extended its emergency status until December 22, 2025, while North Sumatra continues to maintain emergency status in several areas. This means the crisis is not over, yet the burden of response remains fully on local governments—without stronger national intervention, such as the mobilization of central government resources or international assistance, to accelerate recovery.
The Politicization of Disaster Through Numbers?
From an environmental politics perspective, disasters cannot be understood as purely natural or inevitable processes. They are often the product of poor policy decisions, failed approaches, and the state’s unpreparedness in facing the climate crisis, such as massive deforestation and uncontrolled spatial planning changes across Sumatra.
Through this lens, we see how the state frequently adopts a technocratic approach—framing disasters in terms of statistics and percentages. The use of figures such as “3 out of 38 provinces” or “93 percent electricity restored” is not merely technical information.
Within the framework of governmentality proposed by Michel Foucault in the article “Numbers as a Technology of Government” (2019), numbers function as instruments of governance, shaping public perception while reducing the urgency of further action. The result is a widening gap between the lived experiences of affected communities and the government’s narrative.
Here, numbers become political. They no longer serve as tools to measure suffering; instead, they function as rationalizations for the state to defer responsibility and reduce the complexity of disaster impacts.
The unmentioned remainder—such as the 7% of areas still without electricity—represents an information debt owed by the state to its citizens, in which victims’ suffering becomes politically invisible and unacknowledged.
The government should stop politicizing disasters through the use of numbers. Efforts to simplify the situation are irresponsible responses. Rather than manipulating narratives, the government must clearly and honestly confront the most urgent priorities facing affected communities.