Dogs and doves in government communication

On the very day I wrote that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in this column, for “abrogating” Nigerians by not engaging us directly about his government, he sprang a wicked surprise and held his first presidential media chat same night. It was a pleasant coincidence, and I felt vindicated that the piece was a fair comment, […]

On the very day I wrote that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in this column, for “abrogating” Nigerians by not engaging us directly about his government, he sprang a wicked surprise and held his first presidential media chat same night. It was a pleasant coincidence, and I felt vindicated that the piece was a fair comment, since the expectation that a president must communicate and engage with citizens on matters of governance is as important a principle of democracy as elections. All of that was on Monday December 23, 2024, but we go even further today.

Let’s begin with Governor Bala Mohammed of Bauchi State who criticised the government’s tax bills and economic policies within days apart in December and January, with a focus on their impacts on northern Nigeria. In response, presidential adviser and former minister, Sunday Dare, presidential surrogate and former Speaker, Yakubu Dogara, and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar each landed counter-punches on the Governor, questioning his motivation and credibility, and what he has done with the increased federal disbursements to his state.

When in late January, former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, delivered the opening salvos of his current bout of political activism at a conference in Abuja, two presidential surrogates—Daniel Bwala on the inside, and Senator Shehu Sani on the outside—descended on him for challenging a government he had helped to enthrone. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s criticisms of the government by upper-cuts from party or government spokespersons like Felix Morka and Bayo Onanuga, who variously dismissed the stateman’s comments as either “baseless and misguided” or the smarting of a defeated politician.

To the extent that all is fair in politics and war, as they say, these counter-attacks are fine and good. But by how much have they helped the government’s meaningful communication and engagement with Nigerians? As someone who taught a postgraduate level course in political communication and public affairs at a UK university for four years, I would say, not much. First, all of these specific instances of government communication are reactive, rather than proactive. The reactions exemplify a government caught on the back foot and pushed on the defence, rather than a government that controls the narrative on its own policies and activities.

Moreover, these reactions are merely a reply to only a handful of other politicians, rather than communicating with or engaging directly with Nigerians on the government’s own terms. Equally important, or worse, the reactions ignored the serious concerns raised by the opposition politicians, whatever their motivations. To tell Governor Bala Mohammed that your government has disbursed more money to his state than previously does not address the concerns of Nigerians on the tax reform bills the Governor tapped into, even if you feel the concerns are misinformed. Policy communication begins from policy conception and design, not an after-thought.

In short, these cases are what we might call the “attack-dog” approach to public communication, where officials bark and snarl at people for getting close to the government or their principal. In Nigeria, this is unfortunately the dominant approach to government communication. It has its uses on a good day, but it is not always the best or most strategic approach for winning hearts for a government.

Consider other cases by this same government, for example, the ministerial briefings overseen by the Ministry of Information and National Orientation. Four of these have been held so far this year, the latest of which featured the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Management, Festus Keyamo, who delivered an excellent performance in government communication. I also watched the excellent interview on Channels TV by the Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Professor Muhammad Ali Pate, as well as the Minister of Works, David Umahi’s subtle and adept comments in response to former President Obasanjo’s reported view of the government.

I confess that when I watched Ali Pate on Channels, I was tempted to write to him to request an interview on Trust TV and for the readers of this column, since the journalism on this page is mainly about public policy, and Channels does not serve all Nigerian audiences. More broadly, these latter cases are positives for the government’s communication efforts, and we can call them the dove approach. Unlike dogs, doves are known across most cultures as messengers of peace and hope, the very impressions this government would like Nigerians to have of it.

The dove approach is more proactive, like the Minister of Health submitting himself to questioning by a journalist on live television, and more engaging, like fielding questions from reporters during a ministerial briefing. It is not loud like the dog approach, but subtle and nuanced, and ultimately more effective because it is more respectful of the citizens and of democratic norms. This is the model of government communication most effectively deployed by Obasanjo’s Minister of Information, Chukwuemeka Chikelu, whose work on behalf of his government still commands respect even today. This could well turn out the case for current holder, Mohammed Idris, too, who adopts a similar approach.

In my view, the ministerial briefings, in particular, are among the government’s most effective platform for engaging meaningfully and democratically with Nigerians. But it can be made less formal and more localised, more targeted, and can take more different formats and involve more Nigerians than journalists. For example, it would do this government a load of good for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar to sit down for a televised town hall meeting with border communities in Katsina, Sokoto or Jigawa to discuss what the government is doing to maintain good relations with our neighbour to the north, Niger Republic.

That would be more useful than dabbling unnecessarily into matters outside his job description. I personally believed the government has recovered well on this thorny issue so far, and that Nigeria cannot expect to bend over too much to accommodate a junta looking for any straws to hold. But the perception across the north remains different, and can benefit from direct ministerial engagement, for example, elaborating on our latest and unstated oil for peace initiative there now.

Secondly, because the government does take public communication as a serious tool of governance, it sometimes forgets its own reach. Government is actually the largest employer of journalists in this country. These journalists are at once the frontline policy communicators of the government, a window through which Nigerians perceive governance on a daily basis beyond personal experience. With appropriate training and tools, government-owned media can transform policy communication in an effective and useful ways that still serve journalistic norms better than current practice.

Ultimately, the government’s best communication tools are its actions. You cannot win enough hearts by cleaving Kano and Rivers into warring garrisons. Still, certain actions of government officials can be effective. A Chinese leader once held a surprise dinner with a rural family, just to bring the state to the level of the people. Tinubu himself pioneered the idea of a One-day Governor more than 20 years ago, and his attendance at the funeral of fallen soldiers last year earned him due plaudits. The state can wear a gentle and humane face, and with all the problems.

As I write, a young Nigerian female youth corps member is facing official harassment in Lagos merely for narrating her personal experience with inflation. A simple phone call from a presidential aide explaining the hopes of reform will do far better for the government than the authoritarian actions of overzealous NYSC officials threatening her. Afterall, as a British govermment white paper noted in 2014, legislation, regulation, taxation and communication are the main tools of governance in democracy. Threats are not in the equation. That, right there, is the point all along.