Government communication as a constitutional mandate

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER TWO AN OVERVIEW OF GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION

Introduction

The previous chapter introduced and conceptualised the study. This chapter reviews and discusses available literature on government communication systems and the benefits associated with new media, in the main. It begins by mapping government communication systems around the world, in order to understand and compare how various governments communicate with their citizens. It then proceeds to discuss how good governance is promoted by democratic governments, followed by a discussion on fostering public opinion and discourse by removing gatekeepers. Furthermore, the subject of demography and social media usage is discussed, followed by a discussion on the power of social media on effective mass mobilisation. In addition, the subject of social media, political communication and persuasion is discussed to provide a perspective on how the advent of social media has benefitted politicians to persuade potential voters during electioneering campaigns. This extends to marketeers, who continue to exploit the potential of social media platforms, to persuade potential clients to buy their products and service offerings. The subject of new media and information overload is also discussed to give a perspective that not all information can be shared via social media platforms. Finally, new media and cyber-addiction are interrogated to establish the reasons for and the level of new media addiction within communities.

Mapping government communication systems worldwide

Democratic governments, across the world, are put into office to solely represent the interests of those who elected them – the citizens – hence the citizens could be dubbed sole shareholders (What is Democracy?. 2004; Parycek & Sachs 2010; CommGAP 2011; Sanders & Canel 2013). One could effectively equate a government to a board of directors – appointed by the shareholders to act on their  behalf – to guide and oversee the performance of their business organisation towards achieving its strategic objectives (The Institute of Directors in Southern Africa NPC 2016; Nicholas 2018). Essentially, the directors have a fiduciary responsibility to protect and grow the shareholders’ investment in the business (The Institute of Directors in Southern Africa NPC 2016; Nicholas 2018). Clearly, if a person represents your interests, they are obliged to regularly report back to you on the performance of your interests or shares, and the same applies to democratically elected governments. Undoubtedly, the citizens invest their votes by democratically electing a government into office to represent their interest, hence the government, as the board of directors, is obliged to continuously update the citizens – the sole shareholders – about the performance of their business (OECD 1996, 2018; CommGAP 2011). This is because the perspective on building democracy is premised on the principle of transparency and accountability to the people who voted and entrusted a particular political party with the administration of their country; hence communicating with citizens is fundamental for good governance (Parycek & Sachs 2010; CommGAP 2011; Sanders & Canel 2013).
The implication is that “for a democracy to operate effectively, the government must communicate with the citizens … They have a right to know what government … [is] doing, and why administrative decisions are made” (OECD 1996: 7) [emphasis in the original]. In supporting this view, Young (2007) argues that governments across the world co-ordinate their communication activities to promote and raise awareness about the services they offer, and at the disposal of their citizens. They have thus developed their own communication systems to fulfil this obligation (Horwitz 2004; Young 2007; Javuru 2010; Canel & Sanders 2012). This legitimises the existence of democratic governments because they were elected to represent the interest of the citizens, and not their own; hence the obligation to constantly provide feedback to the ‘interest-holders’ or shareholders (Parycek & Sachs 2010; CommGAP 2011; Sanders & Canel 2013). In essence, the primary function of government communication machinery, in a democracy, is to regularly inform and engage with the citizens – the sole shareholders – on the implementation of their government’s service delivery plan (CommGAP 2009, 2011; Parycek & Sachs 2010; Javuru 2010; Cornish, Lindley-French & Yorke 2011; Sanders & Canel 2013). However, governments across the world approach communication with their citizens differently; hence a few approaches and communication strategies being implemented, will be examined to support the objectives of the study. This relates to the types of communication channels or platforms being utilised by various governments in communicating with their citizens. In this regard, citizens’ engagement and participation are communication priorities in a number of countries such as Sweden, Germany, the United States (U.S.), the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Spain and Singapore; hence they are ranked amongst the top 30 in the world (CommGAP 2009; Sanders & Canel 2013).
The Swedish government system of communication is premised on the democratic principles of transparency and accountability which allow interaction between government representatives and the electorate (Sanders & Canel 2013). Accordingly, the country’s government communication system has been digitised, making social media fundamental platforms to engage with the citizens (Sanders & Canel 2013; OECD 2018). Just over 67% of Sweden’s municipalities have adopted social media platforms, particularly facebook, as official communication channels, owing to their popularity amongst the citizens (Sanders & Canel 2013; OECD 2018). To show total commitment towards strengthening government communication with the citizens, the Swedish government is gearing towards full digitisation by targeting to have broadband connectivity of 98 percent – access to one (1) gigabit per second – to households and firms by 2025 (OECD 2018). Digitisation of government communication has resulted in Sweden being ranked the second in the world, in terms of Internet usage by the citizens (OECD 2018).
During his inauguration as the president of the United States of America in 2009, Barack Obama stressed that government’s “openness will strengthen … democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government” (Parycek & Sachs 2010). To this end, the U.S. government regards social media as a fundamental “engage and connect” communication strategy to interact with the citizens (Mickoleit 2014: 12). Effectively, the U.S government has adopted new media interactive two-way communication channels, like the social media, which enables its representatives to engage with the citizens (Mickoleit 2014). In the UK, the use of social media is deeply entrenched in the country’s digital strategy, given that all local councils are obliged to utilise interactive platforms to communicate with the citizens (Mickoleit 2014). Government communication in Singapore is also characterised by digital participation, which enables regular and frequent updating of the citizens about government policy implementation (Sanders & Canel 2013).
As a member of the U.S. government-founded Open Government Partnership (OGP), the Danish government has also jumped on the new technology bandwagon and has, since 2012, made digital communication mandatory (Denmark. Danish Agency of Digitisation 2014; Du Preez 2015). This has seen the penetration and usage of new media channels increasing tremendously, thus making its public service the world leader in the adoption of new ICTs (Du Preez 2015). The OGP seeks “to promote good governance, to strengthen democracy, and to utilise digital technology to improve society … [in order to] increase transparency in public decision processes, citizen participation and dialogue with civil society … and accountability” (Denmark. Danish Agency of Digitisation 2014). As a result, the Danish government has passed a law that shifted government-citizens interaction from traditional (old) to new media – online communication, albeit with due consideration to those with no internet connectivity or who are technically challenged (Du Preez 2015).
In Poland, facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Blip and Flicker were referred to as “government communication tools” to communicate with the citizens (Sanders & Canel 2013: 165). The Chilean government communication machinery is characterised by five (5) trends, most notably, the centralisation of government communication on the country’s president (Sanders & Canel 2013). This has made the president central to government communication, meaning the president became the face and voice of communication campaigns. The measure of whether government communication was effective was thus based on the approval ratings of the president (Sanders & Canel 2013). The Chilean government thus recognises communication as being strategic to its success, and as such it had started to significantly increase funding for this function. It had even professionalised it by appointing experts to advise the president and ministers on communication (Sanders & Canel 2013). On the upside, the Chilean government had further recognised the significance and appropriateness of the electronic media, including social media platforms, in catalysing effective communication with the citizens. This had seen the Chilean president and ministers starting to communicate directly with the citizens via social media, amongst others (Sanders & Canel 2013).
As a result, there is a growing international trend by governments preferring to use the new media platforms such as social media, in communicating with the citizens. However, the experiences of the military dictatorship era of the Pinochet government (1973-1990) has tainted all communication initiatives of the democratic Chilean government, as evidenced by unsuccessful government communication campaigns due to the loss of trust by the citizens (Sanders & Canel 2013). In India, despite the country being the most populous in the world – with over 1, 2 billion citizens and more than 200 languages – its government communication system has proved to be effective owing to the adoption of strategic information dissemination platforms (Sanders & Canel 2013). This was made possible by government’s massive roll-out plan of wireless Internet connectivity and e-government to the more than 250, 000 local administrations across villages (Sanders & Canel 2013).
In Canada, the government regards communication as a vital service to the citizens because it considers the citizens as their masters – their critical shareholders – who have invested their resources and entrusted a board of directors (government) with the responsibility to ‘make profits for them’ (Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). In this analogy, the citizens’ votes are equated to both financial and non-financial resources, and the profits equated to the electoral promises made by the political party in government. The Canadian government utilises multiple interactive information dissemination and sharing platforms to satisfy diverse preferred modes of communication (Canada. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). Amongst others, it utilises social media to communicate important messages to the citizens and other stakeholders, following the realisation that the majority of Canadians prefer such a medium as their primary platform or channel of interaction and sharing of information (Canada. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). Furthermore, the interactive nature of social media platforms supports the assertion that it can also be used “for collaboration and crowdsourcing to support policy development and service delivery, and to facilitate public engagement” (Canada. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014: s).
The Kenyan government, as a county based country, is mandated to ensure the existence of a myriad of platforms to facilitate public communication and information sharing in terms of section 95 of the County Government Act (Baswony 2014). This ranges from old media (such as radio, television, newspapers and public meetings) to new media platforms (such as the Internet and social media). Accordingly, the Kenyan government utilises “public forums or gatherings like barazas … [and most significantly, what the government regards as] … effective strategies [such as] mafirimbi, social media, village elders/chiefs, church announcements and mass media announcements in print media and radio or television” (Baswony 2014). Mafirimbi is a mobile public address system used to create awareness within communities about upcoming events and gatherings. Social media is used predominantly by the government to communicate with the youth given their fondness of the interactive medium (Baswony 2014). In Singapore, the government has adopted the use of social media platforms for official communication purposes, and frequently consults and engages with the citizens to get their views on policy initiatives and its performance in implementing policies (Sanders & Canel 2013). It further utilises its own in-house feedback unit to gather opinions of the citizens. Consequently, communication with citizens in Singapore continues to improve because the citizens appreciate that government recognised them as unique individuals and “thinking being[s] … with the rights of a citizen, instead of pure political subject[s]” (Lee 2011: 19). The implication is that by communicating via social media, individual citizens feel intimate to, and valued by their government, and this has arguably closed the communication gap between the two parties. However, too much interaction and consultation with citizens may lead to feedback fatigue which may lead to the whole transparency initiative losing its credibility, as it happened in Singapore when the citizens ended up concluding that it is “mere window-dressing exercises to give appearance of open government communication” (Sanders & Canel 2013: 311).

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Conceptual setting
1.3 Government communication as a constitutional mandate
1.4 History and the role of the Government Communication and Information System in South Africa
1.5 The origin of the communication discipline
1.6 Understanding effective communication media
1.7 Communication as a strategic government function and the new media
1.8 Old versus new media: Distinguishing between the two communication channels.
1.9 The research problem
1.10 Purpose of the study
1.11 Objectives of the study
1.12 Research questions
1.13 Significance of the study
1.14 Definition of terms
1.15 Dissemination of the results of the study
1.16 Structural presentation of the thesis…..
1.17 Summary
CHAPTER TWO: AN OVERVIEW OF GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Mapping government communication systems worldwide
2.3 Promoting good governance in a democracy
2.4 Fostering public opinion and discourse by removing gatekeepers
2.5 Demography and social media
2.6 The power of social media on effective communication
2.7 Social media, political communication and persuasion
2.8 New media and information overload
2.9 New media and cyber-addiction
2.10 Summary
CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Defining the terms diffusion and innovation
3.3 The origin of diffusion
3.4 The three diffusion theory families
3.5 Limitations of the Diffusion of Innovations theory
3.6 Summary
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Research design
4.3 Research methods
4.4 Pilot study: Assessing the realibility and validity of the data collection instrument
4.5 Data analysis
4.6 Ethical considerations
4.7 Summary
CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Data presentation
5.3 Correlation between communication channels utilised by government and channels preferred by the citizens
5.4 Summary
CHAPTER SIX: THE COMMUNIGATION MODEL: THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR SEAMLESS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE SOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT AND THE CITIZENS
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Understanding a conceptual model and its significance
6.3 New media as communigators towards effective government communication
6.4 Adopting new media platforms to strengthen government communication
6.5 The Communigation Model: From communication to communigation
6.6 Critiquing the Communigation model
6.7 Summary
CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSIONS OF THE RESULTS
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Scope of discussions
7.3 Summary
CHAPTER EIGHT: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Summary of the results
8.3 Conclusion
8.4 Recommendations
8.5 Recommendations for further research.
8.6 Limitations of the study.
LIST OF REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT