WHEN PR GOES BAD: THE CASE OF THE EC.
Samuel Osarfo Boateng
Author || Trainer || Writing Consultancy || Strategic Communications || Corporate Communications||Public Relations||Digital Marketing||Researcher||Graphic Designer
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
To drum home the inevitability of communication in any form of human interactions and transaction, Thomas Zweifel in his book ‘Effective Ways to Communication’ repeated the phrase ‘communicate or die’. The phrase, short as it is, speaks volumes of the irreparable damage lack of or failure to communicate can pose to individuals and organizations, small or large.
While I agree largely to the point that communication is important and the lack of it fuels rumors, misinformation, poison, and emotional venom (Parkinson’ Law), a worse event is engendered when communication is not strategically done. Strategic Communication will require that one took into account the context, the content, timing, place and circumstances under which a message is communicated.
It is against this backdrop that I wish to share an opinion on the two day forum in general and particularly scrutinize the propriety or otherwise of the EC’s decision to publicly state its position on the matter in issue.
I am not a politician: I can’t claim to be one. Only God knows how I will vote in the 2016 election since the only thing that identify me as a Ghanaian, my NHIS card, don’t qualify me to get a Voter ID card. Don’t ask me of my Passport nor my Drivers’ license. I don’t have any of them. The many sorry tales on the difficulties people go through in their quest to secure these cards continue to scare me away from getting them. As for my National ID card, the least said about it, the better.
Having attempted to denounce my political energy, may I state that the purpose for this piece is to evaluate the PR relevance of the forum and my view on why I think the PR value has been vitiated.
ASSESSMENT OF THE FORUM
While I was generally satisfied with the temperate manner in which the whole forum was conducted, I am particularly uncomfortable with the EC’s decision to advertise its position on the matter in issue. But for the fact that the EC would make its position on the contentious matter known, I would not have had any reason to scrutinize the forum as I am attempting. To put it bluntly, the EC should not have made its position known. Yes, not at the forum.
Listening to the EC chair, I gathered that the commission had already taken a position on the matter. Indeed, the statement chronicled an array of reasons why it will not be feasible and possible to get a new register, a matter that had precipitated the forum. So if this decision had been reached, why a committee constitute and organize a forum, knowing that the committee’s recommendations is subject to EC’s acceptance or otherwise.
Listening to her deliver the EC’s position eloquently, the following streams of questions came gathering: Why will the EC become a party in the matter by stating its position at the Forum? Why the need for a forum if the EC’s position is that the pleasure of the petitioners cannot be granted? Was the forum the appropriate platform to respond to the petitioner’s petition, if it cannot be met?
I do not intend to suggest that members of the committee may be compelled to tow the line of the EC. I have no doubt that members of the committee are independent and men of integrity who cannot be manipulated in any way. My fear, however, is that since the recommendations of the committee will still be subjected to the EC’s advertised position on the matter, the tendency for the committee to make recommendations in similar stride is highly probable.
Again, even if the Committee recommends that a new register be developed, their recommendations may not be considered given all the reasons that has been publicly made to suggest same.
I truly think that the whole idea of the forum was defeated the moment that EC went ahead to state its position. The spirit of co-operation and compromises lost its footing, the very moments reasons were advanced against the petitioner’s position.
The fact is that by publicly stating its position at the forum, the EC becomes a party in the matter. They ought to have known that the context for the forum was one that divides their audiences into the extreme positions in the matter. In any case, what was that for? Was it necessary that the committee took notice of the EC’s position even before they could report their finding back to them (EC).
I truly think the decision of the EC to openly state its position on the platform was ill-advised, since same is prejudicial to its prerogative to either uphold or side-step the recommendations of the Committee.
This is the basis for my argument. Perhaps, I am not thinking straight. May be I need to allude to a common practice in governance to sound clearer:
When a President sets up a Commission or Committee to inquire into a matter, does he, as part of the terms of reference of the commission/committee, dictate or state his position on the matter? If this happens, does it not prejudice the matter in issue? And wouldn't it have a tendency to sway the Commissions' findings in that direction, knowing well that their recommendations on the matter could be overturned to conform to the position of the appointing authority?
In any event, why will a President institute a commission/committee to investigate a matter, when he is fully equipped with facts to make a sound judgement or take a position on a matter? Would that not smack of hypocrisy?
Looking at it as a PR person, I truly think the communication objective for the forum has been vitiated by this singular act of the EC. The good will, co-operation, and image restoration goals of the forum have been be quashed, in my estimation.
As for why the EC will be confronted with an embarrassing technical hitch in their attempt to demonstrate the registration process, it is better not much is said about that.Many poked fun at it on Social media but as a PR person analyzing the issue, I find difficulty coming to terms with it.
Recommendation
I wished my readers were privy to a book I am currently reading on Cases in Public Relations. Perhaps, they will understand my frustration and my seemingly judgmental posture on this matter. The whole issue in contention, to me, borders on Communications, generally and Public Relations, in particular. If these two are not managed well, public confidence in the EC which stands at 47% - (according to a report by the CDD) - will decline further.
Quite frankly, the EC needs a strong Communication Consultant to assist them as the move to restore public confidence while building consensus on this all important matter.
God Bless Our Home Land….Even though she has refused to get many of us employed.
Your Comments, Shares and Likes keep me in the library.
Freelance Researcher and Content Strategist.(Author,Dates with my Eyes)
Samuel Osarfo Boateng
www.surfos7press.wordpress.com/category/editorial
0541842198/0270644157
Author || Trainer || Writing Consultancy || Strategic Communications || Corporate Communications||Public Relations||Digital Marketing||Researcher||Graphic Designer
9 年Thanks so much
Author || Trainer || Writing Consultancy || Strategic Communications || Corporate Communications||Public Relations||Digital Marketing||Researcher||Graphic Designer
9 年I am so excited and humbled by your interest. ..Blessings to all my readers
Development Advocate, Policy Analyst & Apostate Politician
9 年Sure, Mr Boateng, as Job says in Job 28: 12-17, wisdom and good judgement are not found even in gold. It is a question of maturity - or rather immaturity! That has been my concern since the appointment of this EC chair. But must she be blamed alone? That could be unfair. Was everything she delivered representative of all EC members views and wishes? Or did she throw in a few things from outside the agreed presentation package? In that case the whole group displayed immaturity in handling such an important presentation by declaring a position. But the EC is not the people of Ghana. The EC is not final decider in matters of how our resources must be used. We all expect the forum panel to do a thorough job, gathering additional info from outside the forum and preparing an elaborate professional report which must be transparently published. Thereafter it will be for Ghanaians from all walks of life to loudly let the EC know that we are not subjects of that institution of ours. On the contrary the EC must serve the purpose and good of the people for a peaceful Ghana.
Strong proponent of micro-grid technology to provide electricity/Filmmaker/Presenter on Sexual Abuse Prevention and self defence
9 年I agree with Mr. Boateng's views on the forum. However, it doesn't matter if the voter's register is redone or the excess "voters" are surgically removed from the register. It doesn't matter if the register is okay as is. What really matters is the credibility of the register by all Ghanaians, not the politicians. Currently the register is viewed by most Ghanaians as NOT CREDIBLE. If nothing is done with the register, then the 2016 elections will be seen as a sham by Ghanaians. Something must be done to restore the credibility of the voter's register in the eyes of Ghanaians, not the politicians.