Critics of the current approach argue that focusing primarily on reactive, emergency-based measures fails to address the underlying societal roots of gender-based violence. While providing shelters and helplines is necessary, these actions often treat the symptoms rather than the cause. Skeptics warn that without a fundamental shift in education and cultural attitudes toward gender equality, the cycle of violence will continue to repeat regardless of how much funding is allocated to emergency response.
There is a growing concern that the government's reliance on periodic, crisis-driven campaigns creates a false sense of security. When the focus is only on the spike in summer cases, the public may overlook the daily, systemic issues that occur throughout the rest of the year. This narrow perspective can lead to a 'band-aid' solution that ignores the need for long-term educational reform and the dismantling of patriarchal structures that normalize control and abuse within relationships.
Furthermore, some analysts suggest that the current bureaucratic processes for accessing aid are too cumbersome, even with increased funding. If the system remains difficult to navigate, victims may still find themselves unable to access the help they need. Accountability-focused observers argue that the government must prioritize simplifying these processes and ensuring that local authorities are held responsible for the effectiveness of their protection programs.
Instead of just increasing the budget for emergency services, critics advocate for a more holistic strategy that includes mandatory gender-equality education in schools and stronger legal consequences for repeat offenders. By shifting the focus toward prevention and cultural change, the state could potentially reduce the number of cases before they reach a critical stage. The risk of continuing on the current path is that the country remains trapped in a cycle of managing crises rather than preventing them.