Government communication is today one of the most strategic pillars for political stability and citizen trust. Unfortunately, it is clear that this communication, essential to the smooth running of a democracy, is practically non-existent or, worse, confused with that of the political party in power. This mixture of genres harms the credibility of public institutions and blurs citizens’ perception of government action.
1. An overwhelming observation: the confusion between government communication and partisan communication
Instead of clear, calm institutional communication focused on the country’s achievements and development prospects, we are witnessing verbal escalation carried out by certain members of the government and general directors, often from the ruling party. These officials, entrusted with specific technical and administrative missions, engage in untimely speeches, seeking not to enlighten citizens but to discredit political figures in whom the Senegalese have refused to place their trust and to position themselves politically.
Each statement seems to want to surpass the previous one in seriousness, with unfounded accusations, accusatory speeches and a tendency to dramatize previous management. This climate is unhealthy and destructive for the government’s image. Ministers, directors general and other senior officials, instead of focusing on day-to-day management and the challenges faced for the well-being of citizens, play prosecutors and judges, accusing those who preceded them in power.
This drift poses a major problem: it confuses the authority of the State with the defense of the interests of a political party. The institutionality of government is thus blurred and the boundary between government communication and political communication becomes blurred, if not non-existent.
2. Consequences: chaotic and counterproductive communication
The consequences of this confusion are serious. First, the multiplication of speeches by members of the government and executives of the ruling party ends up confusing the official message. Repeated accusations, verbal escalation and highlighting the faults of previous management: all this contributes to creating a climate of generalized suspicion.
This discourse, too often hollow and oriented towards criticism, distances the government from its primary mission, that of working for the general interest. The permanent dramatization of facts and speeches risks making those who indulge in it ridiculous, notably the current leaders of the regime, who will end up being perceived as actors on a superficial political scene, without real substance. Furthermore, this verbal escalation can have the perverse effect of minimizing the real errors committed by the old regime. Indeed, by making accusations without proof or nuance, public opinion could end up considering these accusations as unfounded political maneuvers, weakening the credibility of those who make them.
Worse still, this form of communication contributes to further dividing citizens, by exacerbating political and social tensions, rather than seeking to ease them. By adopting a permanent accusatory discourse, members of the government and their representatives within the party risk creating a lasting divide between those who support them and those who feel unjustly accused or ignored.
3. Solutions for more institutional and responsible communication
To get out of this impasse, several solutions are necessary. First, it is crucial to control the communications of members of the government. There can no longer be any disorderly speeches or verbal one-upmanship. Ministers and directors-general must be strictly supervised in their public declarations, ensuring that they remain in line with their responsibilities and skills.
Next, it is essential to institutionalize government communication. The government spokesperson must fully play his role. He must be the main interlocutor with the press and the population concerning the main orientations and government decisions. One of its key missions would be to organize weekly press briefings, particularly following the Councils of Ministers, in order to report on the decisions taken, the reforms in progress and the government’s achievements. This would make it possible to refocus communication on concrete actions, rather than on sterile debates and accusations.
Furthermore, it is imperative to limit the communication of general managers and other public officials to their areas of competence. These officials, while being important relays for the dissemination of information, should not replace ministers or the government spokesperson in general public statements. Their interventions must focus on the technical achievements of their respective sectors, in order to avoid any excessive politicization.
Finally, it is essential that our leaders become aware of their new position as public officials. They are no longer just political actors defending partisan interests; they are the leaders of the nation, guarantors of the general interest. Continuing to act as if they were still in opposition, to overplay criticism and accusation, is a strategic error that could have serious consequences for the stability of the country. By not realizing the responsibility that now falls to them, they expose Senegal to the risks of division and disinformation.
Ultimately, government communication must be fundamentally reformed to regain its institutional and transparent role. Our leaders must understand that poorly controlled political communication is dangerous. It is time for the government to focus on managing the country, respecting the dignity of the public service and avoiding the excesses of verbal one-upmanship. If this situation is not corrected quickly, it could cause unnecessary tensions and damage the country’s image, both internally and internationally. It is therefore urgent to restore professional government communication, respectful of State rules and focused on objective and constructive information.
NIANG Winners
President of the And Sopi Thiès Movement
Related News :