Communicating politics and the politics of communication

A lot of hullabaloo was made of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s public admission that the Philippines is, indeed, in a fiscal crisis. Some quarters took issue with the declaration as needlessly sounding the alarm over an issue that was best left for the resolution of the able members of Congress and economic experts. What could the ordinary Filipino possibly do to avert this looming crisis, anyway?

Others felt the public announcement a valid and necessary step towards arriving at a solution. Acknowledging the problem is half the battle, popular wisdom suggests. A national awakening, as it were, would rally everyone to help out in implementing what could be tough and austere belt-tightening measures.

Transparency and the need for consensus building are common enough justifications for such public declarations. Communicating issues through the media often puts the announcer in good stead, especially in the if-it’s-in-the-news-it-must-be-true public. In this country, the only exception to that would be well-meaning whistleblowers who end up being vilified and, worse, crucified, for their good intentions. But that’s fodder for another column.

This two-faced perspective is not exclusive to our national experience, however. The US Congress recently conducted inquiries into the 9/11 attacks, probing its intelligence agencies over why early warnings about terrorist action in the mainland were largely left unheeded. To which, collectively, the CIA, the FBI and the police insisted all these warnings were investigated and were found to be insufficient cause to trigger national anxiety. Monday morning quarterbacking gives us 20/20 hindsight now, but issues on what to tell and what not to tell the public will certainly be around for as long as there is a public welfare to look after.

Come to think of it, communicating is one function that the first resident of the palace by the Pasig River seems to put a lot of importance on. Important personages have been designated spokesmen for the President on run-of-the-mill issues. She’s got others to talk about trade and economy, housing, etc. In contrast, charismatic leaders take the opportunity to do the talking themselves, and, in the process, endear themselves to their public. Ronald Reagan was not called "the great communicator" for nothing.

What motivations, then, do we ascribe to politicians-in-office who undertake the role of messenger and announcer? Can we safely assume that they are endowed with a strong moral conscience so their motivations are purely altruistic and for the common good? Or are we being naïve and gullible in doing so?

On the other hand, is every act of communicating with the public mere grandstanding (brandstanding in marketing communication terms) and political gimmickry? Is there a political and selfish motive every time a politician stands behind the rostrum?

Poking Our Noses

The Filipino public is a curious lot. Owing to cultural roots, our inquisitive nature can pique many an unwitting foreigner who may be more sensitive about minding one’s own business. There’s just no limit to where we poke our noses into. It is not unusual to find new acquaintances asking me how much I earn or how much a necklace dangling around my neck costs, for instance.

We abhor being shut out and offer a cold shoulder, in return. Many voters were perplexed and, later, alienated by the uncommunicative actor-turned-presidential-candidate during the recent elections. Our clannish instincts demand communal sharing of information, from macro issues such as national debt, to trivial details such as the color of the President’s toenails.

Savvy marketers and spin-doctors are masters at playing with and taking advantage of this. Releasing choice words and phrases, unleashing calculated sound bites and issuing declarations at well-timed press conferences, ambush interviews, and, yes, maybe even a state of the nation address or two, these adepts are able to predict public response. This is evident in the marketing battle raging in TV, radio and print advertising.

In the political arena, the same marketing gurus, disguised as government consultants, advisers, cabinet members and members of congress, depend upon public approbation to be able to pursue their worldly and developmental goals. To achieve this, strategic communications becomes crucial, carefully planning and forecasting public behavior.

The professional cynic (and, boy, are there a whole bunch of this breed!) may suggest, that, in the case of the announcement of a fiscal crisis, it was simply a "trial balloon" intended to gauge public reaction to a fact. Or, he adds, it may have simply been part of a conditioning process to get the public acclimatized to impending new taxes and price hikes.

Quotable Double

True or not, the art of public communications has clearly attained a level of sophistication and devilry that would have put Plato and Sophocles to shame, what with the finely-nuanced levels of meanings, double meanings and plain double cross. As a noted political communication analyst avers, "When Michael Jackson says he’s ‘bad,’ he really means ‘good.’ I leave you, dear readers, to compile your own anthology of "quotable doubles."

Perhaps it is just the old curmudgeon in me, but one can’t help feeling jaded over daily doses of announcements coming from our public offices these days. A few days ago, newspapers headlined a compelling measure that would have our honorable representatives in Congress give up their pork. A most laudable example of belt tightening, if ever there was one, fulfilling a long-time clamor by civic-minded movements and NGOs and the general public. Lo and behold! Who should come to the defense of these Senators and Congressmen but a prominent member of the Left who just happened to have been voted party-list representative and, consequently, also partakes of this unhealthy pork!

A well of support from various sectors of society has opened up, instigated by the generous starter by the congress chieftains. Church leaders, business honchos and even ordinary wage earners soon followed, unlocking their respective sources of funds that they can turnover to a government needing support to avert the impending financial exigency.

Many media watchers believe that media itself is not exactly an antiseptic channel of communication. To them it has become an acceptable reality that publishers, editors and reporters filter their news according to their own slant and biases, no matter the intensity of their denials. Political influence permeates democratic societies, and the press is no exception. In fact, the fourth estate is a highly contested ground for politicians and pressure groups, since, evidently, he who controls the press controls public perception. And perception becomes reality when perpetuated relentlessly.

Amidst the din and clutter of political-speak, is the hapless Juan de la Cruz, helplessly caught in the middle of a verbal scrimmage between official announcers and their severest critics, usually from the opposing party. He is the one who has to sift through volumes of communiqués trying to decipher what it all means to him. (He is the inquisitive one. Remember?)

In the barrio’s favorite sari-sari store sits a smattering of barrio folk, and the village wise man (or idiot, if you prefer), Pilosopong Tasyo. In the barangay halls are assemblies of the local critics, arguing over the latest pronouncement heard on the radio or TV. The same scene may be repeated all over the country, small people discussing their fate, and hanging on every word uttered by the press secretary, the department head or the President of the Republic.

The business of communicating is the broadcast channel from the state to the people. It is unfortunate that it has become more of a marketing tool than a vehicle to deliver the unalloyed truth. What pride there is in living amid poverty and pessimism would be living a life unfettered by the chain of deceit and deception.

Tell me please, it is still so.

* * *

E-mail bongo@vasia.com or bongo@campaignsanddgrey.net for any comments, questions and suggestions. Thank you for your letters.