Public relations 101
Who cares who sits where?Photo: STAR
I don't get it. Why is it that successive Bangladesh governments are so clueless when it comes to public relations? Perhaps it is hubris caused by winning an election in a landslide or perhaps it has something to do with our feudal society in which the powerful need not concern themselves with anything as insignificant and inconsequential as how the little people see them. Both of those are part of the reason, but I cannot help thinking that more than either of these, it is good old-fashioned, honest-to-goodness cluelessness. They simply do not understand the importance of how things look. It is this specific form of obtuseness that has been a key cause of the downfall of every single elected government we have ever had. I am not saying that had past governments had their PR in place that they would have survived without delivering, but there is no question that their fall from grace in the public eye had as much to do with their indifference to public opinion as it did with their poor performance in office. Nor is this a problem that only political governments suffer from. The out-going care-taker government similarly had a poor grasp of the public relations business, though not for the want of trying. However, trying to pack talk shows with sycophants and cautionary phone calls to newsrooms about which stories are considered acceptable is the opposite of good public relations, and shows just how clueless the care-taker government and its backers in the cantonment were when it came to this kind of thing. It is this inability to appreciateor contemptuous indifference forhow things look to the public, and the likely negative consequences for the government, that is what comes to mind when observing the first days of our new government. The kerfuffle that has marred the first few days of parliament, first over the deputy speakership, and then over the allocation of front bench seats to the opposition, is incomprehensible to me. I cannot for the life of me understand why the AL would give the opposition such tailor-made grounds for grievance when what is at stake is so minor and petty. I do not wish to get into the merits of the argument with respect to the deputy speakership or the allocation of front bench seats. It is perfectly possible that the arguments put forth by the AL are both correct and supportable and that it has right on its side in these matters. That is not the issue. The issue is what would it have cost the AL to concede these two minor arguments to the opposition in terms of what it would have gained in setting a positive tone, taking the moral high-ground, and winning the battle of public perception. Instead, what the AL, in its infinite wisdom, has chosen to do is to give the opposition a tailor-made opportunity to grandstand and plenty of ammunition when they say that they are being treated poorly and that nothing has changed. Why give them that ammunition? What could possibly be gained compared to what has been lost? How is it that no one in a position of power seems at all able to understand that that the past week has been a public relations fiasco for the AL and that first impressions are crucial? Think: how simple would it have been to have given the opposition its way, to not pick fights on petty issues. If the AL had bent over backwards to accommodate opposition demands, how much easier would it have made life in the future when it will need to dig in its heels on an issue of consequence or when the time comes for the public to make up its mind about who to blame for the dysfunctional parliament that we appear to be heading towards. I am not even suggesting that the government do anything so bold or shocking as to act in the national interest. Perish the thought. I am merely suggesting that it might wish to act in its own self-interest, and that going above and beyond the call of duty to be conciliatory and accommodating is a politically astute and advantageous move. If the government cannot see that, we are in for a long five years. And, of course, there is a direct line connecting caring about what the public thinks and governing responsibly. If a government doesn't care about public opinion, then that is a pretty good indicator that it will not be much concerned with the public interest. One would have thought that the election results would have taught the government the danger of what happens when a government is indifferent to public opinion. If the BNP can lose its majority of 2001 then the AL can lose its majority of 2008.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments