Government Legitimacy in Crisis Communication: A Discourse Network Analysis of the Contest between Disaster Normalization and Green Policy

Abstract

Hydrometeorological disasters in Indonesia specifically large-scale floods in Sumatra have evolved into a political arena where environmental crisis communication has become a site of contestation over government legitimacy. This study shifts the focus to contemporary public policy discourse by mapping the clash between two opposing paradigms: disaster normalization and green policy. It employs the Discourse Network Analysis (DNA) method, integrating qualitative content analysis with social network analysis. The dataset comprises 450 news articles from 15 leading Indonesian online media outlets. Research findings indicate that media discourse remains heavily dominated by a "disaster normalization" narrative centered on technocratic, reactive solutions such as disaster mitigation and infrastructure improvements. The government leverages this narrative to reinforce its performative legitimacy through physical recovery responses while attributing the crisis to natural weather factors. Conversely, a coalition of NGOs and academics constructs a counter-narrative advocating for green policy by highlighting ecological root causes, such as environmental policy, deforestation, and the broader ecological crisis. Network structure analysis reveals that government actors control the flow of communication as "core actors" with the highest centrality, while academics, experts, and NGOs play strategic roles as knowledge brokers and bridging actors. The discourse network is dominated by the government coalition, which has successfully normalized the disaster. Narratives regarding disaster management in Indonesia can no longer rely solely on physical infrastructure recovery; instead, they demand a transformation in crisis communication shifting from mere disaster normalization toward risk-informed sustainable development.