Government Communication: Between Desire for Transparency and Dialogue Deficit
Government communication in Mauritius is currently depicted as a power confident in its legitimacy. However, it struggles to translate this confidence into constructive dialogue with the public. Recent scandals and unpopular decisions have rekindled critiques regarding the government's lack of communication, raising questions about transparency and citizen trust. While there have been notable improvements, such as regular press conferences, these efforts are still insufficient to bridge the gap between authority and the populace.
Javed Bolah, a communication expert, highlights that despite the government’s undeniable electoral legitimacy, it faces challenges in embodying the renewal it promised. Almost a year later, the gap between expectations and tangible actions appears to widen. He argues that this fracture indicates a structural weakness: the communication skills that lead to power do not always translate into effective governance.
Laura Jaymangal, Acting CEO of Transparency Mauritius, echoes this sentiment, acknowledging some progress but stressing that public trust remains fragile. She points out that government communication is still too fragmented, reactive, and lacks a clear guiding principle. Both specialists agree that effective political communication is not measured by the frequency of interventions but by message coherence and the government’s ability to listen. Building trust requires vision, strategy, and future-oriented skills.
The two experts emphasize the need to move beyond mere media exercises and establish continuous dialogue, not only led by ministers but also involving professional communication strategists. Despite visible efforts, government communication in Mauritius remains caught between a desire for transparency and image management—a precarious balance where official discourse struggles to transform into genuine conversations with citizens.
The underlying issues reveal several deep vulnerabilities. Understanding these flaws and their impact on the government-citizen relationship is crucial. Bolah argues that the shortcomings are primarily strategic, citing the mishandling of significant reforms without constructing or mastering the narrative as a major mistake. He claims the government has capitulated in the narrative battle, responding defensively to criticism instead of proactively shaping the discourse.
Jaymangal adds an institutional perspective, noting that the communication deficit stems from a political culture marked by secrecy, inherited from a governance style that does not encourage information sharing. The Official Secrets Act legitimizes this withholding, while the absence of a Freedom of Information Act denies citizens a fundamental right to public information. Government communication is often politicized, and national television has been perceived as a propaganda tool, undermining the credibility of the state’s message.
Despite a multitude of communication advisors, the message does not always resonate. Bolah sees this as an organizational issue, stressing the need for a chief strategist to orchestrate their efforts. Effective communication demands centralized command and unwavering coherence. Additionally, he mentions the human dimension, indicating that many advisors are learning the intricacies of political communication alongside their ministers. Communication is a distinct science and cannot be improvised.
The consequences of ineffective communication extend beyond the media realm. Silence or opacity creates a vacuum quickly filled by rumors, misinformation, and fake news, undermining public debate, delegitimizing institutions, and fostering widespread distrust in the state. Jaymangal emphasizes that communication is not a secondary tool but a cornerstone of democracy. When it falters, it leads to a loss of trust, reduced citizen participation, and increased political cynicism.
As the communication deficit affects citizen trust, a key question arises: what solutions could rectify the situation and restore credible dialogue between the government and the populace? Some political observers suggest the need to recruit a Communication Manager. Bolah insists this is a necessity rather than an option, emphasizing that the role extends far beyond that of a spokesperson. The true imperative is twofold: possessing expertise in communication management for a complex structure and participating in deliberations rather than merely promoting them. The manager's role should be central to decision-making processes to understand subtleties and craft a coherent message.
Without this authority, the director becomes just another spokesperson. This issue is particularly sensitive in coalition governments, often undermined by partisan calculations. Strategies fail not due to incompetence but because of structural impossibilities. The function of communication should not be to mask failures but to leverage success. For Bolah, credible recovery requires restoring credibility through tangible actions and acknowledging past mistakes. He advocates for restructuring the government team to prioritize competence and humility, revamping communication to align strictly with action, and clearly explaining complex reforms while ensuring their effective implementation.
Jaymangal emphasizes institutional measures, recommending the adoption of a Freedom of Information Act as a cornerstone to guarantee access to information and foster a culture of transparency. Institutionalizing crisis communication is also essential, training and empowering independent technical spokespersons beyond political discourse. Encouraging proactivity by regularly publishing open data such as budgets, contracts, and statistics can help reduce ambiguity. Finally, distinguishing government communication from partisan messaging is crucial, as the state’s voice should serve citizens, not a party’s agenda.
Jean Claude de l’Estrac, a political observer, reflects on the evolution of government communication, noting that political leaders used to engage directly with the public in various settings. Today, however, communication often centralizes the messenger rather than focusing on message reception, leading to increased misunderstandings. He argues for professional training for ministerial communicators and suggests that the Prime Minister's Office should engage an internationally-minded communication cabinet.
Alexandre Laridon, Senior Advisor at the Prime Minister’s Office, emphasizes that the current communication strategy relies on three pillars: transparency, trust, and inclusion. He compares government communication strategies to football, indicating that careful planning and execution are essential. As public communication undergoes profound transformation in the digital age, it must be a strategic tool for dialogue, trust, and citizen participation. Laridon asserts that communication must be clear, honest, and accessible, emphasizing proactive transparency to combat misinformation and restore public trust.
Overall, the narrative underscores the challenges and opportunities facing government communication in Mauritius, highlighting the importance of transparency, strategic dialogue, and the need for a cultural shift towards a more inclusive and accessible communication framework.