Audiovisual identity of country needs to be refined

Dear Editor,

The public relations dimension of several changes this government would have had to manage has, frankly, been well handled. One thinks of its treatment of the results of the Rodney COI, of the Venezuelan claims, the management of national finances and the forensic audits. The response to the prison fire, to the several local tragedies and to the insufficiency of resources in some rural and municipal communities has generally been praiseworthy.

The offer of inclusion for all and declared objective of social cohesion are commendable as was the deepening of the local government process including creation of new townships and the renewal of Georgetown. Improving the handling of the public at the points where they need to meet the government institutions like hospitals and post offices and licensing bureaus, is being taken care of. The general restraint it has shown in its treatment of opposition figures and issues has been exemplary. The media it controls has played a positive role when it has not been insufficiently assertive.

Interestingly, we have had administrations that have included respected professionals in the field. The current President and Prime Minister have both contributed to media as professionals, Granger as a publisher/writer and Nagamootoo as a writer and media workers representative. In addition, despite its difficult treatment of the press, past and current general secretaries of the PPP and some ministers have been active journalists and in principle should have done things differently. So we have had governments capable of managing image.

But as with all governments, there have been some cases of incomprehensible planning errors at the PR level and the absence of concerted and sustained effort that effectively uses the media instruments, the trade union support, and the fund of goodwill with which it commenced its period of rule. Since the coalition has come to power, one thinks of the Wales Estate case, knowing fully well that the   leadership completely  understood the role and politics of GAWU and the allegiances of the workforce concerned. One thinks also of the unnecessary noise surrounding Minister of State Joseph Harmon’s visit to China, the case of ministers’ and parliamentarians’ salary increases and the compositions of some bodies in terms of ethnic and gender representation. I am sure that people who live in the country could add examples of both the positive and the weak and that remarks by commentators like Lincoln Lewis and David Hinds are not entirely misplaced.

It is understood that prejudice and miscomprehension will warp the perception of many. And that embedded preferences, for most, will determine the choice among competing interpretations of the coalition’s intentions and actions.

But given that some minds will not be changed it still remains the duty of leadership, at all levels, to manage the public’s perception of itself and of its government. It is the reason that nations everywhere assign human and material resources to the public/press relations task. Success at this has facilitated and advanced the state of governance.  Some have complained of the absence of a sense of “master plan” in what the government does and says. By which they mean a programmatic implementation of change based on a comprehensive plan that is inter-coordinated and with clearly defined social and economic objectives. In reality this should have been the work that preceded the manifesto and saw the involvement of both specialists and activists sharing a common analysis of the problems we have and an appreciation of the solutions we need.

A commission that invites public submissions and ideas has to be set up to

recommend reform and modernisation. As urgent as any enquiry, this would be the best imaginable public involvement. The impatience with which many await the bonfires of the anti-corruption audits reveals, if anything at all, a gap between declared objective and the reality of our legal/judicial capacity that should have been closed within a first semester of the administration.

The general need for reform and renewal remains a work that is slow and that, as a priority, needs to be done for its PR effect. I had noted here that the first platform of good government PR is the management of the “nodes of interaction” at which the citizen meets the state. The reaction to the little gestures of comfort offered pensioners in some places, the crying need for better reception at hospitals and government offices with their dress code confusion, the anachronisms of having to find a parish priest or other notable to sign your form and verify your social worth, and all the other ignorance we have inherited and preserved need to be swept away.

These were among the multitude of reasons people abandoned hope in the country. Not only the dhall ban, but an inconsistent and incomplete approach to a process of reform that was started by the PPP in the fifties, continued by the PNC after independence, and eventually mixed up at a time of economic stress and fear of military threat that led to mass games and the idea of a “people’s militia”. Only the idea of “people” had been inadequately conceived. The “people” remained subordinates in their relationship with the powers that be, and not respected partners or co-leaders. This is the essential failing of our political culture. Plus, the people themselves embody some of the backwardness and hypocrisies. It is therefore not unexpected to find a lot of minor functionaries reconciled to the way things are.  What is needed then is not only PR or Development Support Communications, but real reform that costs little and satisfies many.

Upon review then, one concludes that his government has got to show a greater care for its perception by the several publics which observe it. It needs to create a body, call it a Public Affairs Unit (it manages not only internal “public affairs” as it is called in some places because it includes protocolar matters, but that also manages the projection of its image on

the international scene).  I saw “images of Berbice” on one government web site. We looked at what, despite the fine photography, were scenes of decay and desolation.

The audiovisual identity of the country, which hopes to attract tourists, needs to be refined. The presence and presentation of statistics, including the latest appreciation by international agencies of our progress needs to be highlighted in a new web site that would be a showcase of the country. Our internet presence needs to be worked on and communication with and ministries and bodies, both domestic and at the international level, has to improve.

The Unit has got to set itself the task of responding with fact and history and public education to both the nauseous propaganda that is generated internally and the misperceptions abroad. Its objective is managing the image of government and country. It needs to develop a master plan that looks at all coming events, political, industrial and cultural, and building content and programme around it.

Yours faithfully,

Abu Bakr