Government communication in Nigeria has been historically weak. Citizens hardly know what government is doing and government does not engage sufficiently with citizens.
Read More : Civil servants or evil servants: Myth versus reality
The communication gap between government and citizens provides ample opportunity for mischief-makers to fill the gap with fake news, unfounded rumours and the most outlandish conspiracy theories. Because the government communication machinery is so fragmented, it takes government an inordinately long time to counter erroneous narrative. Often, no one in government knows who should be speaking on what topic and who shouldn’t, or what they should be saying and what they should not be saying.
Various organs of government give conflicting information and quote inconsistent statistics. A recent example of this was in December 2018 when one of the President’s spokesmen, Garba Shehu, cast aspersions on the job creation and unemployment data presented by the credible National Bureau of Statistics, led by the very able Dr Yemi Kale. Thankfully, in this case, the public did not have to think for too long before deciding who to believe. Dr Kale’s reputation and that of his Bureau are unimpeachable. The whole world knows that.
Government communication is often reactive, rather than proactive, and government often only comes out to challenge wrong narrative very many days after news has developed wings and flown to all corners of the land. By the time government comes out with a response, the damage has been done. The few people that will even get to hear government’s side of the story will treat the response as an afterthought and doubt its credibility. Unfortunately, people tend not to believe the police when, after killing a citizen, they say “We came under heavy fire from some unknown hoodlums and returned fire for fire, following which one of them died.”
The lack of faith in what government says is worse in pre-election periods. People tend not to believe government’s claimed achievements, particularly when they are hearing about them for the first time in the run up to elections. The damage is worse when government spokespersons use fake images of projects in other countries, culled from the internet, and claim they are projects executed by government in Nigeria. When the people feel that they cannot trust their government, there is a serious problem. It makes it much more difficult to demand patriotism and personal sacrifice of the citizen.
The communication architecture of the Federal Government is fragmented and lacking in cohesion. The current President does not engage enough with citizens. For some reason, he seems to be more at home talking to the international press while he is out of the country than engaging with the local press or directly with citizens. Interactions with citizens are carefully scripted and it appears that every effort is made to avoid live interactions. Therefore, any human, humorous and compassionate side that the President may have is invisible to the public.
We have a Ministry of Information whose job appears to be to dish out unidirectional government propaganda, with little or no effort to listen to citizens or actively engage them. The name of the Ministry itself is indicative of its approach. The agencies and parastatals under the Ministry, such as the Nigeria Television Authority and the Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria, adopt the same approach of simply eulogising government. Quite often, what they announce as their news headlines are completely at odds with the hot topics being discussed by citizens, nationally and internationally, particularly when the news does not favour government. Again, this has meant that many people, particularly the youth, do not believe anything coming out of government news channels.
Next, we have Special Advisers and Special Assistants to the President on Media and Publicity.
These are the people that speak on behalf of the President specifically, and whose sole job appears to be to attack perceived enemies of the President and to defend the President from attack. Occupants of these posts are usually journalists, for reasons that are really not clear to me.
Bizarrely, although they tend to appear on television very often, they hardly ever write articles in newspapers. In recent times, government has also engaged some Special Assistants on New Media to manage its social media platforms. Apart from those that make efforts to inform the public, one or more of these Special Assistants on New Media tend to settle into the role of an “attack dog.” Their unassigned role appears to be to pour invectives and insults, some of them potentially libellous, on members of the opposition and, sometimes also, members of the public.
Given the nature of social media, communication by those government officials in charge of new media are more immediate, responsive and interactive than those of traditional media. The immediacy of interaction required to engage on social media is something that is unusual in traditional government communications. Many governments around the world struggle with this.
Finally, government has a National Orientation Agency that has been so ineffective over the years that citizens argue among themselves whether or not it is still in existence. Even lawmakers have questioned the usefulness of having the agency and appropriating billions of Naira to it every year. Not many people know that the National Orientation Agency even has offices in all 774 Local Government Areas of Nigeria. Apart from this, Ministries, Departments and Agencies each have their own information or communication functions, with widely variable quality.
The Directors of Information in the ministries are staff of the Federal Ministry of Information posted to the various ministries as the Ministry of Information deems fit. They are often too far removed from the action to know what is really happening in the ministries, especially as Ministers will often arrive with their own media advisers.
The Directors of Information also tend to be more comfortable with traditional media and distrustful of new media. Apart from their instinctive cautiousness as civil servants, it is also very difficult for the Director to make any money from new media. With traditional media, they can get commissions, through proxies, for any advert they place in the newspapers or on radio and television. With traditional media also, they need not make themselves available for the immediate attacks and challenges that come through social media.
The websites of many government ministries, departments and agencies are out-of-date and non-interactive. In many cases, the email address and the phone numbers on the websites are non-functional. I have been contacted on Twitter at least twice by foreign investors that were looking to invest in Nigeria but could not find a way to reach the relevant ministry. I have had to personally call the concerned ministers to put them in touch with the potential investors. Surely, this does not connote seriousness on the part of government.
Between the Ministry of Information, the Special Advisers and Special Assistants on Media at the Villa, the National Orientation Agency and the communication functions of the Ministries, Departments and Agencies, there is no apparent coordinating mechanism. There was some talk of a comprehensive communication strategy some time ago but some of the relevant stakeholders were not even invited to, or were not available to attend, some of the discussions. I do not believe that the initiative ever really took off.
I also understand that there was a Presidential Communications Retreat following the 2019 elections. However, it is difficult to see what positive impact the retreat may have had, given the recent handling of the “RUGA Settlements” debacle between the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, the National Economic Council and the Special Assistants to the President on Media at the Villa.
When government communication is effective, the President is able to look citizens in the eyes and tell them the state of things and they would believe him. Government communication would be proactive, rather than reactive. It will advance government’s own agenda, rather than defensively reacting to the agenda of others. Facts will be presented in a credible, transparent and coordinated, way by people who know what they are talking about.
When government says it will do something, it will actually do it. When it is not able to do it or gets it wrong, it will quickly admit its mistakes, apologise and set out the steps to ensure that any lapses do not recur. Communication will be done in an atmosphere of openness, transparency, honesty and responsibility.
The merits of continuing to have a Ministry of Information at all is questionable. This military-era approach has been abandoned by many countries. The age-old practice of appointing journalists as Presidential spokespersons is also questionable. While I have nothing against journalists, I believe that the President will be better served if he were to get rounded technocrats who can explain government policies, actions and results to citizens in a relatable and easy-to-understand way.
To be able to do so, the government spokesperson needs to have the mental capacity and breadth of knowledge to be able to understand, at least superficially, a wide range of disciplines ranging from public finance management, including budgeting, monetary policy, health, education, security, agriculture, petroleum and electricity. They will form a close relationship with the subject matter experts in the ministries, departments and agencies, such that government speaks with a credible and unified voice on issues of importance. That way, a journalist will not be arguing with the nation’s Chief Statistician on the methodology for calculating the number of jobs created.
Engaging with citizens and communicating government activities is of vital importance. Many people erroneously think that you only need to do job and that the results will speak for you. It does not work that way in government. The image is as important as the substance. Even when you are delivering results, there is often a time lag between when people start to see changes and when they start to believe them, or even realise that things have changed around them.
Nigerians are inherently incredulous people. Every news of progress is first dismissed as a lie. Nigerians demand pictures. Then when pictures are presented, they claim it has been photoshopped and demand videos. When videos are presented, they are said to have been doctored. When they are invited to see things for themselves, they cannot be bothered and people that go to see with their own eyes and touch with their own hands are dismissed as paid agents of government.
Aspects of this has to do with politics and the lack of a distinction between national interest and vibrant political opposition. Most of it though has to do with a longstanding history of government not talking enough to citizens and not always telling them the truth. In an environment where politicians dig shallow cavities in the ground, fill them with water from a water tanker and commission them as “solar-powered boreholes”, you cannot really blame the citizen for his suspicion of politicians and government.
All these is why government needs to do more on communications. It needs a clear, comprehensive communication strategy. It needs to reconsider the roles of the Federal Ministry of Information and its agencies and parastatals, as well as how government communications are handled in ministries, departments and agencies.
By the way, I do not understand the rationale behind including NTA and FRCN in the Federal Government’s annual budget when their competitors like AIT and Channels are profitable businesses. We also need to decide whether or not we still need the National Orientation Agency in its current form. I suspect that if it is abolished, not many Nigerians will miss it. Finally, we would like Mr President to please talk to us more.
JOE ABAH
Dr Joe Abah is a development practitioner and the immediate past Director-General of the Bureau of Public Service Reforms.
