The International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES), from Ljubljana, is known for its incisive analyses of global developments, particularly in the Middle East and the Balkans. In this vein, Dr. Pablo Cruz in his article “Crisis Governance and Strategic Communication in the Global South: Navigating Complexity and Uncertainty” highlights how increasingly complex and interconnected crises are making crisis management and communication essential to modern governance, especially in the Global South, while stressing the need for systematic approaches and effective leadership.
Dr. Pablo Cruz
The forthcoming GAFG High-Level Executive Programme on Crisis Management and Crisis Communication Management takes place at a time when governments and strategic industries, especially in the Global South, are facing increasingly complex and interconnected crises. Clearly, in today’s interconnected and unpredictable world, no government, corporation, or public institution is immune to crisis, as natural disasters, cyberattacks, economic shocks, public scandals, and misinformation campaigns can suddenly threaten stability, credibility, and public confidence. This perspective is particularly relevant when considering the structural vulnerabilities that characterize many governance systems in the Global South.
Contemporary crises are no longer isolated events. They evolve rapidly, cross geographic and administrative boundaries, and unfold under conditions of uncertainty, political pressure, and public scrutiny.
A relevant contemporary illustration of these dynamics can be observed in the ongoing tensions across the Middle East, where crises increasingly exhibit unprecedented horizontal and vertical escalatory trend. Conflicts in the several neuralgic points of this planet are no longer confined to territorial disputes but are intertwined with economic fragility, geopolitical rivalries, ideological fanning, information warfare, and humanitarian pressures. These overlapping factors create environments in which uncertainty, rapid escalation, and fragmented communication are the norm rather than the exception. For governments and institutions—particularly those with limited crisis management infrastructure—this context underscores the importance of coordinated leadership, strategic communication, and preparedness. The MENA/West Asia case thus reinforces the broader argument of this synopsis: without structured crisis management systems and coherent communication strategies, complex crises risk spiraling beyond control, eroding institutional legitimacy and further destabilizing already vulnerable regions.
This synopsis underlines a persistent structural challenge: although crisis management theory has developed considerably, institutional capacities in many parts of the Global South remain limited and unevenly developed. In numerous cases, crisis responses are still improvised or fragmented and often rely on risk management approaches that are not fully suited to unpredictable crises. Furthermore, leadership plays – as Silvie Drahošová observes – a decisive role, as leaders can either stabilize a crisis or worsen it, particularly in terms of communication, coordination, and accountability (Drahošová, 2025).
In this regard, the Crisis Management and Crisis Communication Management executive programme of the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG) and its partners such as the Intl Institute IFIMES directly addresses these gaps. By combining high-level reflections from experienced international decision-makers with simulation-based sessions centered on strategic forecasting, crisis communication drills, and resilience design, the programme links theory to practice. It recognizes that crisis management and crisis communication are inseparable processes. Institutions responding to a crisis must align their actions with how they explain and justify them, as well as how they manage public expectations, in order to prepare adequately, navigate effectively, and restore institutional trust afterward.
Therefore, this programme should be understood not merely as a theoretical discussion, but as a practical step toward strengthening institutional capacity and preparedness. For leaders in government and strategic industries, especially in the Global South, it represents an opportunity to embed resilience, coordination mechanisms, and reputational safeguarding into the core of decision-making systems, moving from improvisation toward structured readiness.
Guidance for leaders in the Global South
Crises itself can be defined as situations in which the basic social structures, norms, and values of a system are threatened by an unexpected event that affects individuals, groups, organizations, cultural systems, entire societies, or even the global system (Christensen et al., 2016; Boin et al., 2005). These situations manifest as natural disasters, terrorist attacks, pandemics, industrial or transportation accidents, among others, and require rapid decision-making under conditions of uncertainty (Christensen et al., 2016).
Such situations may acquire transboundary characteristics, as they can involve multiple geographical, administrative, infrastructural, and cultural boundaries. This, in turn, complicates the ability of public policy designers, regulatory actors, and administrators to establish administrative structures that are simultaneously stable, flexible, and effective (Christensen et al., 2016).
When a crisis occurs, specialization is necessary to ensure the availability of relevant skills and knowledge. However, this must be accompanied by clear leadership, defined responsibilities, and a well-established chain of command (Christensen et al., 2016). During such events, blame dynamics often emerge, shaping narratives around responsibility and performance and framing which actors are perceived as winners or losers (Boin, Kuipers & Overdijk, 2013). These dynamics highlight the importance of effective leadership, as inadequate decisions can exacerbate a crisis (Boin, Kuipers & Overdijk, 2013).
Crisis management aims to reduce harm, protect institutions, and maintain public trust (Boin, Kuipers & Overdijk, 2013). This is particularly important in a context where trust in and support for institutions continues to deteriorate (Bećirović, 2020). However, crisis management should not be regarded as a universal solution capable of addressing every scenario, and expectations should therefore remain realistic. Several factors must be considered when addressing a crisis, including its size, origin, speed of development, predictability, competitors, victims, spectators, the degree of freedom of actors, and available resources (Boin, Kuipers & Overdijk, 2013), as well as the lack of transparency in the concentration of power during crisis situations, as highlighted by the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG).
Some authors divide crisis management into three main categories: process, preparation, response, and recovery. Conversely, Boin, Kuipers y Overdijk (2013) identify ten essential executive tasks: early recognition; sense making; decision-making; coordination; coupling and decoupling; meaning making; communication; accountability; learning; and resilience-building. For the purposes of this synopsis, particular attention is given to communication.
During a crisis, communication must explain the origins of the event, its consequences, the actions required to mitigate its effects, the activities that can support crisis management, and the actors responsible for implementing these measures (Boin, Kuipers y Overdijk, 2013). Communication must also operate both toward citizens and across organizations. However, communication systems are often disrupted, fragmented, or overloaded during crisis situations, making this task particularly challenging.
The crisis management perspective emphasizes the importance of prevention and risk management while recognizing that critical events can always occur (Boin, Hart y Kuipers, 2018). Preparedness, therefore, can determine whether a situation remains manageable or escalates into a large-scale disaster.
At the same time, the role of leadership should not be overstated. Leaders may exacerbate crises by ignoring risks, making inadequate decisions, or prioritizing particular interests over effective crisis resolution (Boin, Kuipers y Overdijk, 2013).
In the context of the Global South, the study of crisis management has traditionally focused on stable and democratic environments. However, it is necessary to expand this focus, particularly in regions such as Latin America, where the relationship between crisis management and public administration remains underexplored (Boin and Rhinard, 2023).
As a result, the number of studies on crisis management in the Global South remains limited. A key factor is the lack of training, specialization, and professionalization in this field. Instead, attention is often directed toward risk management, which differs fundamentally from crisis management in that it addresses known scenarios rather than unexpected and unprecedented events (cfr. Boin et al., 2018; Backman and Rhinard, 2017; Boin et al., 2005).
This situation does not stem from a lack of capability among scholars or public administrators, who often respond using available tools and improvisation, but rather from the limited institutionalization of crisis management within academic and public sector structures.
This can be illustrated by comparing the extensive crisis management infrastructure in the European Union with the relative absence of such structures in the Global South. For example, in Mexico, despite some initiatives, there is currently no dedicated crisis management center, and universities rarely offer specialized courses in this field, although risk management is more widely taught.
Therefore, if capacity and leadership in crisis management are to be strengthened, the subject must be integrated into universities and public institutions. This includes the development of training centers, simulation exercises, and communication strategies. Without such efforts, crisis response will continue to rely on improvisation, increasing the potential risks for society.
