Time for a rethink of how the government communicates

Disruptions in essential public services are a familiar aspect of life in Dhaka. Electricity might remain unavailable in a particular area for several hours. A road may be closed off while its pavement is excavated to lay pipes. In most such cases, the government does communicate something beforehand. The date and duration of a power outage may be announced. The temporary closure of a road may be reported. A press release may explain that a decision has been taken, but this is usually where official communication ends.

People are rarely given a clear explanation of why the disruption or maintenance in question is necessary, which problem specifically is being addressed, how the decision will affect them, how they should prepare for it, or what to expect next. Without this complementary or advisory information, even a necessary decision can create confusion, fear, inconvenience, and distrust. This is where the difference lies between ordinary information dissemination and strategic communication.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Ordinary communication tells people what has happened, while strategic communication explains why it has happened, why it matters, how people will be affected, what they should do, etc. In Bangladesh, we do not lack communication institutions. But these largely operate in silos, with limited coordination and no common communication doctrine. Their work is often reactive, beginning after a situation has already emerged, rather than anticipating questions and information needs that accompany major decisions.

Government communication also remains heavily centred on senior political or public personalities. Greater emphasis is put on communicating who attended a meeting, delivered a speech, inaugurated a project, or made a statement than on what a policy intends to achieve and how it affects ordinary people. The system is also predominantly press-driven, Dhaka-centric, and focused on visibility. But being visible is not the same as establishing shared understanding, and achieving media coverage is not the same as gaining public trust.

Clearly, not enough effort is being expended to build a two-way relationship between the government and the people. As a result, the government often leaves questions unanswered—a vacuum filled by rumours, partisan claims, or public suspicion. We need to address this gap, for which a paradigm shift is necessary. It means approaching communication from the perspective of the audience. What do people need to understand? What are they worried about? What practical guidance do they need? What misconceptions are likely to emerge?

Communication becomes strategic when it is tied to a clear policy objective, designed around audience needs, coordinated across all relevant institutions, delivered through appropriate messengers and channels, and evaluated according to its actual impact.

The absence of this approach is visible in some of the most consequential areas of government activity. One example is the prime minister’s recent visit to China. Bangladesh published the joint statement, reported about the agreements, and held a post-visit press conference. But the communication gap here was not an absence of information, but the absence of a sufficiently distinct Bangladesh-centred narrative.

Chinese official communication consistently situated the visit within Beijing’s wider strategic vocabulary: Belt and Road cooperation, political mutual trust, non-interference, the one-China principle, and China’s role as a development partner. These messages were repeated across the Chinese foreign ministry, state media, and the Chinese embassy in Dhaka. Bangladesh’s official communication, by contrast, focused on the prime minister’s meetings, the upgrading of bilateral relations, and the number of agreements signed. It did not explain with comparable emphasis what Bangladesh had entered the negotiations seeking, which objectives had been achieved, how the outcomes would affect citizens, or how the visit fitted into the country’s broader foreign policy strategy.

This imbalance became obvious when Bangladesh’s own state news agency published an extensive account of how Chinese state media and analysts had interpreted the visit. In effect, the significance of a visit by Bangladesh’s PM was being explained to local audiences largely through China’s strategic framing.

Strategic communication needs to be built around the disciplined use of evidence and audience insight. Communication objectives should be clearly defined and directly tied to policy objectives. Different government institutions should coordinate their narratives and messages instead of communicating independently or contradicting one another. Messages should also be delivered through the right messengers and channels. A senior minister may not always be the most trusted or effective person to communicate a technical health issue. A televised press conference may not reach rural communities, young people, workers, or citizens who primarily receive information through smartphones and social media. Our communication strategies must, therefore, reflect who the audience is, which sources they trust, and how they consume information.

Most importantly, effective communication must involve two-way engagement. The United Kingdom’s Modern Communications Operating Model offers one useful reference. It begins not with a press release but with a policy objective: what must people understand, feel, or do for a policy to work? It then uses audience evidence, coordinated delivery, and measurable outcomes.

Bangladesh does not need to copy this system, but it can adopt the underlying discipline. If applied, for example, to the case of a hospital’s closure, this would mean judging communication not by how many newspapers reported the decision, but by whether patients understood the risk, knew where alternative care was available, and could act on that information. The regulator, health ministry, local authorities, and service providers would communicate different parts of one coordinated plan to the public.

The objective of strategic communication should not be to centralise every government message or turn public communication into political talking points, but to ensure that communication is accurate, timely, transparent, coordinated, audience-focused, and linked to public policy. Ultimately, the purpose should be to improve public understanding, support better implementation of policies, counter confusion and misinformation, and strengthen trust between citizens and the state.

Apon Zahir is research fellow at the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS).

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.