Why statespersons should be serious about communication
An arrogant form of communication, among many other factors, contributed to the regime’s downfall. There was no communication strategy in place for the government
After the loss of many lives during the students' movement, the recent former information minister claimed that the government and the students were on the same page regarding quota reform. However, he did not state this at the onset of the movement.
This, I believe, was a serious communication flaw for the government, which aimed to convince the people of its intentions. It demonstrated that the government was not willing to sit down with the students and solve the crisis.
Similarly, as the movement unfolded, there was a series of communication failures on the part of the government.
Handling a press conference is one of the vital skills for a statesperson. Unfortunately, what we watched the former prime minister saying was a gross mishandling of a journalist's question during a press conference related to her China visit. She could have either avoided responding to it or provided a more diplomatic answer.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Knowing what not to say is equally essential for a statesperson.
After the loss of six lives, when she decided to appear on TV to deliver a speech to the nation, her choice to wear a black saree was not well received by the students and the public.
When Abu Syed was shot at point-blank range, the information minister claimed his actions were drug-induced. That was a cruel statement to make while many people were dying.
At the same time, many government ministers started talking and commenting in their capacities. This was unnecessary. In a crisis situation, only one or two spokespersons should have communicated with the public.
It is also surprising to see, after the fall, that the son of the former prime minister has been attempting to communicate with the Bangladeshi people through the media of another country. His messages are so out of place that they suggest he has not done his homework and lacks a communication plan.
The regime has fallen, and I believe that an arrogant form of communication, among many other factors, contributed to its downfall. There was no communication strategy in place for that party or, for that matter, the government.
With a new mandate from the revolutionaries, we now have an interim government that will implement deep reforms in almost all sectors and eventually hold a free, fair, and acceptable election.
The task of this interim government is both sensitive and Herculean. The totalitarian nature of Bangladeshi political parties has not disappeared overnight. This government will likely face enormous challenges as it strives to meet the people's expectations.
After a long period of totalitarian rule, other hungry parties will surely seek to gain power as soon as possible. Additionally, supporters of the fallen regime will find countless faults in whatever the advisers of this government say or do. At the same time, the public's expectations of this group of states persons are sky-high.
As of now, they have complete public trust and confidence. Our interim advisers have shown excellent accountability and transparency, which is part and parcel of the excellent communication skills needed for states persons.
However, if current events are any indication, they may face several crises. Crisis situations demand a well-thought-out communication strategy.
Since they have so many things to manage, a communication plan is essential. Over the last 53 years, our governments have not mastered the art of communication.
Ekram Kabir is a storyteller. ekabir@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
