In the realm of governance, I have always argued that “When a man’s word does not match his action, integrity goes on exile.” This sentiment speaks directly to the heart of leadership and the critical role that communication plays in maintaining public trust. Leaders are often judged not only by what they promise but by how closely their actions align with those promises. When words and deeds are inconsistent, a void emerges, and into this void, doubt, suspicion, and cynicism flow.
The integrity of leadership begins to erode when people perceive that those in power say one thing and do another. This disconnect between communication and action has far-reaching implications for governance and public confidence. At its core, this disparity reflects a deeper crisis of credibility, one where citizens begin to lose faith not just in individual leaders but in the institutions they represent.
In Nigeria, this issue has been persistent, leaders frequently make grand declarations only for their actions to fall short, creating a chasm between the government and the governed. This growing skepticism has, over time, fostered a culture of distrust in government. Government promises of reform, development, and change are often met with doubt, as citizens have grown accustomed to the gap between rhetoric and reality.
The case of the presidential jet
In 2024, the Nigerian government faced widespread public outrage following the acquisition of a new presidential jet at an estimated cost of over N150 billion. The outrage was compounded by the fact that this expenditure came at a time when the country was reeling from economic hardship, high inflation, and the removal of fuel subsidies. Citizens were left wondering why their leaders, who had urged them to “tighten their belts,” appeared to be living in luxury at their expense.
The issue was not merely the purchase itself; it was the government’s failure to communicate the rationale behind it before the media exposed the purchase. By the time the government offered an explanation, it seemed defensive and disconnected from the people’s struggles. In a nation where rumours often fill the void left by poor communication, the damage had already been done. Mistrust had deepened.
Proactive communication
Proactive communication involves strategically deploying actions, policies, and engagement efforts to shape perceptions and influence stakeholders’ behaviour. It is intentionally and strategically aimed at engaging stakeholders ahead of time, telling the story before others do, so as to ensure that facts, context, and intentions are well-articulated.
When governments hide information or fail to communicate it, they create an environment where skepticism and mistrust fester. By being transparent and engaging in open dialogue, they create opportunities for understanding, even if the message is difficult.
The importance of proactive communication
Proactive communication is akin to laying the foundation of a house before the storms arrive. It allows governments to frame issues, explain decisions, and, most importantly, engage the public in understanding the rationale behind policies and expenditures.
Why the Nigerian government must shift
Nigeria’s approach to communication is often reactive, which diminishes public trust and fosters a sense of alienation among citizens. Here are key reasons why a shift to proactive communication is essential:
1. Current reactive approach weakens credibility
The current reactive communication strategy of the Nigerian government, which typically involves issuing statements only after issues have spiraled into full-blown crises whether it be protests, policy controversies, or scandals undermines its credibility. Such defensiveness can give the impression of concealment or a lack of control, leaving citizens feeling alienated and disconnected, as if their concerns are only acknowledged under duress.
Stream of studies have shown that proactive communication (used in the right context and well executed) generally enhances credibility and trust building (See, Boman, C., & Schneider, E. (2021); Beverland, Farrelly, & Woodhatch (2007); Godes, & Mayzlin, (2009)). If you will like to read more on this read my article titled ‘Stealing the Thunder: How Voluntary Self-Disclosure Enhances Credibility’ here https://tinyurl.com/5ee47ej9
2. Proactive communication builds trust gradually
Proactive communication, builds trust over time through open, transparent, and continuous dialogue. By informing the public in advance of major decisions and clearly explaining the reasoning behind them, the government can foster a sense of inclusion and demonstrate that it values its citizens’ opinions. This approach is strongly supported by a myriad of studies (See, Tomlinson & Schnackenberg, 2022; Lee & Li, 2021; Fisher & Hopp, 2020; Wang, 2020; Yue, Men, & Ferguson, 2019; Kim & Lee, 2018; Auger, 2014; Kanagaretnam, Mestelman, Nainar, & Shehata, 2010).
3. Anticipation and foresight are key to proactive communication
Proactive communication functions much like the principles of preventive medicine or engineering design, where foresight and strategic planning are essential. Just as engineers anticipate potential failures in a system and build redundancies to ensure stability, effective communication anticipates public reaction and addresses potential concerns before they escalate.
By informing the public in advance of significant decisions and transparently articulating the reasoning behind them, the government fosters a sense of inclusion and shows that it values the citizenry’s opinions. This can be likened to the psychological theory of social exchange, where transparency and consistent communication increase relational satisfaction and trust.
4. Proactive communication mitigates outrage
By sharing information early, the government can shape public perception and reduce the likelihood of negative reactions. In the case of the presidential jet, a proactive approach could have lessened the outrage by framing the purchase as a necessary measure for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of the president and vice-president during international engagements. An excellent example of this is the Scottish government’s ‘Public Smoking ban’ implementation.
Scotland’s Smoking Ban Implementation (2006)
In 2006, Scotland successfully implemented a nationwide smoking ban in enclosed public spaces by engaging in proactive communication and public consultation before the policy was enacted. The government conducted surveys, public forums, and focus groups to gauge public opinion and worked closely with industry stakeholders, including the hospitality sector, to address concerns about potential economic impacts. This dialogue led to support measures for businesses, such as guidance on outdoor smoking areas, and allowed for a phased rollout of the policy. The government also launched a health education campaign, framing the ban as a public health initiative designed to protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke rather than an attack on smokers’ rights.
As a result of this engagement, the smoking ban was implemented smoothly, with widespread public support and minimal backlash. The hospitality industry adapted without significant economic losses, and the ban contributed to improved public health outcomes, including reduced rates of respiratory illness among workers. Scotland’s successful approach became a model for other countries, demonstrating how proactive dialogue and stakeholder collaboration can lead to the effective implementation of controversial policies.
5. Proactive communication fosters accountability
Early and regular information-sharing encourages accountability because it sets expectations for transparency. When leaders proactively communicate, they are held to higher standards by both the media and the public, which pressures them to make more thoughtful and responsible decisions. This, in turn, leads to better governance, as the government becomes more attuned to public sentiment and scrutiny. A very good example of a situation where government proactive communication led to citizens holding their government accountable, even when the government became reluctant to fulfil its promise is the United Kingdom’s Brexit negotiations.
The United Kingdom’s Brexit negotiations
In 2016, the UK government, led by then-Prime Minister David Cameron, committed to respecting the outcome of the 2016 Brexit referendum. Throughout the campaign, the government repeatedly promised that the public’s decision whether to leave or remain in the European Union would be honored. After the “Leave” vote, however, subsequent governments under Theresa May and Boris Johnson encountered difficulties in negotiating Brexit deals with the EU, resulting in delays, parliamentary deadlock, and attempts to modify the terms of the withdrawal. Public frustration grew as many citizens believed the government was backtracking on its commitment to implement Brexit as promised.
Due to the initial communication that the referendum result would be final and respected, the government was held to account by both the media and the public. Massive pressure from pro-Brexit voters, as well as continued scrutiny by the press, pushed the government to stay on course, even when some political leaders appeared to waver or renegotiate certain terms. Ultimately, public pressure forced the government to follow through with Brexit, culminating in the UK officially leaving the EU in January 2020.
Therefore, despite various attempts to soften the terms or delay the process, the government’s early promises of respecting the vote bound them to accountability, ensuring that they could not easily renegade on their commitment.
Conclusion
Just as a well-functioning body requires an effective circulatory system to maintain health, good governance requires effective communication to sustain public trust. Had the Nigerian government preemptively communicated the reasons for acquiring the new presidential jet, public backlash could have been mitigated. Framing such decisions within national security or diplomatic contexts would have clarified their necessity.
Proactive communication reduces the likelihood of crises by addressing potential issues before they escalate. By sharing information early and framing it strategically, the government can shape public perception and mitigate negative reactions. This approach fosters accountability and leads to better governance, ensuring that the government remains responsive to public sentiment and scrutiny.
Ayodele is a distinguished and multiple award-winning strategic communication expert who specialises in ‘Message Engineering’. He helps organisations, brands and leaders communicate in a way that yields the desired outcome. He is the author of the seminal work, PR Case Studies; Mastering the Trade, and Dean of the School of Impactful Communication (TSIC). He can be reached via ishopr2015@gmail.com or +2348077932282
