The Communication Cost Of Governance: When The Messenger Becomes The Story -By Tony Usidamen

Every government has two responsibilities. The first is to govern. The second is to help citizens understand what it is doing and why it is doing it. Success in the first does not automatically guarantee success in the second.

Examples abound of governments that implemented difficult reforms but failed to carry the public along. There are also those that communicated difficult realities so effectively that even people who disagreed with specific policies understood the rationale behind them.

The difference was not always the quality of policy. More often than many governments realise or acknowledge, it was the quality of communication. That distinction matters more today than at any other time in recent history.

Public opinion is no longer shaped primarily by official statements or newspaper headlines. It is shaped minute by minute across television, radio, online publications, podcasts, WhatsApp groups, X, Facebook, TikTok and countless other platforms where competing narratives constantly vie for attention. In this environment, communication is not a support function of governance; it is an instrument of governance.

Yet governments frequently misunderstand the role of spokespersons. Many assume that their primary responsibility is to respond to critics, defend decisions, and win arguments. The purpose of strategic communication is not to make governments look good. It is to help citizens understand government well enough to judge it fairly. That requires five disciplines: credibility, empathy, clarity, consistency and initiative.

Recent public communication from Nigeria’s Presidency provides a useful case study—not because this administration is uniquely challenged, but because the communication dilemmas it illustrates confront governments everywhere. The lessons therefore extend beyond one administration or spokesperson.

Credibility: The Messenger Matters

One of the oldest principles of communication is that audiences evaluate both the message and the messenger.

Credibility and trust accumulate over time, and they travel with the messenger. Individuals who once took strong public positions against an administration may later decide to support it. Democracies allow such evolution. But strategic communication must also reckon with how audiences receive that transition. Whether fairly or unfairly, communicators whose previous public positions sharply contrast with their current advocacy often face a higher burden of persuasion.

That burden is not only about political history. It can be just as much about fit. A technically accurate message delivered by someone the audience struggles to relate to may prove less persuasive than the same message delivered by one they connect with more easily. This is not necessarily a judgment on the individual. It is simply how public perception works.

Every government message is filtered through public perceptions of the messenger. The messenger can strengthen the message. The messenger can also become the story. When that happens, attention shifts away from policy and towards personality—a costly trade-off in public communication. Strategic communication therefore pays careful attention not only to what is said, but also to who says it, when it is said, and how it is said.

Empathy Before Explanation

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing any government implementing difficult economic reforms is public frustration.

When citizens experience rising prices, declining purchasing power or prolonged uncertainty, they evaluate government communication through the lens of their own lived experience. People first want to know that their reality is understood.

In a recent television interview, a spokesperson for Nigeria’s Presidency made remarks suggesting that widespread reports of hunger in the country may be exaggerated because members of his own domestic staff appeared to be coping well.

Whether the remarks were intended to reassure, explain or make a different point matters less than how they were received. Communication is judged not by what is intended, but by what is understood. Empathy, therefore, is not a public relations tactic; it is a strategic necessity.

Clarity: Anticipating Interpretation

Strategic communicators ask themselves one question before they speak: How will this be understood?

Audiences interpret messages through personal experience, emotion and existing beliefs. The responsibility of strategic communication is not merely to craft the intended message, but to anticipate the most likely interpretation.

In that same interview, the remark by the government spokesperson that some ministers have used personal resources to support the running of their ministries may have been intended to demonstrate commitment. Yet some listeners may reasonably conclude that ministries are operating under constraints inconsistent with public expectations. Others may ask questions about institutional funding arrangements.

Effective communication anticipates alternative readings because public interpretation—not private intention—is what ultimately shapes perception. Strategic communication is rarely undermined by one isolated incident. More often, it is weakened incrementally when avoidable controversies eclipse opportunities to explain policy.

Consistency: One Voice, One Narrative

Clarity within a single statement is not enough if the government’s public voices are not reinforcing a coherent narrative.

When official spokespersons, political allies and informal advocates communicate with different emphases, different tones or different priorities, audiences often notice the inconsistencies before they appreciate the substance.

Consistency does not require identical language. It requires disciplined alignment around the same underlying reality. This is where credibility and consistency reinforce one another. Strategic communication succeeds not because every communicator speaks in exactly the same way, but because every communicator advances the same strategic objective.

Initiative: Leading the Conversation

Governments often communicate reactively. By the time they respond, they are already operating within someone else’s frame.

Strategic communication works differently. It explains difficult decisions before misunderstanding develops. It anticipates public concerns before they become controversy. It tells the story of policy impact before critics define that story themselves.

Every unnecessary communication controversy carries an opportunity cost. Time that should be spent explaining reforms is diverted into clarifying remarks. Political capital that could have strengthened public understanding is instead consumed managing headlines. The cost is rarely measured, but it is real. Narrative leadership is almost always more effective than perpetual rebuttal.

Communication Is Not Propaganda

None of this argues for polished messaging at the expense of honesty. Propaganda seeks unquestioning acceptance. Strategic communication seeks informed understanding. The distinction matters.

Strategic communication also requires the humility to recognise that expertise does not remove the obligation to explain. Governments will almost always understand their policies more deeply than the public does. That is natural. But the burden of explanation rests with those exercising authority, not with citizens trying to make sense of its consequences.

Effective governments acknowledge challenges honestly while explaining why difficult decisions are necessary. They communicate with confidence, but also with humility, recognising that public confidence is built through sustained explanation rather than repeated assertion.

Beyond One Administration

Although these observations arise from recent public communication, the principles extend well beyond the present administration.

Every government eventually encounters periods when reforms are unpopular, expectations are high and public patience is limited. Those are precisely the moments when strategic communication becomes most valuable.

Communication cannot compensate for poor governance, and no amount of storytelling can substitute for sound policy. But poor communication can undermine public understanding of even well-intentioned reforms, weaken stakeholder confidence and leave a vacuum that misinformation is often eager to fill.

A Final Thought

The most effective spokespersons rarely become the centre of attention. Their success lies in keeping the public conversation focused where it belongs: on the decisions being made, the reasons behind them and their impact on citizens.

Governments should devote as much attention to how policies are explained as they do to how they are designed. Policy and communication are not competing priorities. One shapes decisions; the other shapes how those decisions are understood, and that is often the bridge between intention and legitimacy.

Today, leaders do not communicate because they govern; they govern through communication. Strategic communication should never be viewed as an afterthought or a defensive exercise. At its best, it is a public service—one that helps citizens make informed judgments, strengthens democratic accountability and enables governments to lead with greater clarity, credibility and confidence.

Tony Usidamen advises organisations on strategic communications and public affairs.