The language of government is not merely a reflection of official government policy, but also a reflection of government attitudes towards its citizens. One post on social media, one press release or one statement from a minister can help restore confidence. Or it can help sow seeds of anger, confusion and distrust. An official message does not stay in government files in the digital age. In minutes, it is on the news, in debates, and in public opinion.
This has been made very clear in the first six months of the new government of Bangladesh. In some instances, the officials responded promptly, accepted their errors, corrected their statements and offered practical advice. In others, official communication was unnecessarily harsh, defensive or one-sidedly protective of authority. In some instances, the language was ‘courtly’ and less focused on addressing citizens’ concerns and more on the government’s position. The government can have legitimate grounds to rebut misinformation. However, the message in risk communication is as important as the delivery of the message. Saying ‘complaints will be investigated’ prior to threatening legal action when consumers are already frustrated by the increase in their bills, load-shedding, and service quality can be intimidating.
Taking constructive feedback and adapting a problematic message is a crucial aspect of crisis management. It is not a loss of credibility for governments to admit they made mistakes in communication; it is just as much a confidence builder rather than a loss of credibility if the mistake is corrected at the correct time.
One of the major issues was a documentary, aired at a state programme on the July uprising. Participants complained that there was inadequate representation of some important events and individuals. National Citizen Party leaders walked out of the programme, tensions escalated, and some foreign guests also left. Later, the Liberation War Affairs Minister admitted the mistake, apologised and said corrections would be made.
The lapse of common sense in this video was not just a factual mistake; it was a crisis related to the management of narrative. Multi-layered fact-checking, consultation with related stakeholders and careful final approval are crucial when the state produces content concerning recent sensitive and politically contested history. Remarks by one official during the event that constituted a reprimand further complicated the situation, while calls for dialogue and later an apology helped defuse the situation. The incident demonstrated that whilst communication can be risky, it can also be very beneficial to have a swift corrective response.
Another lesson was the March fuel shortage. On the heels of the Middle East conflict, people had to mob petrol stations, and the Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation had to cut the number of people buying petrol. The government’s view was that fuel reserves were adequate at the same time. The messages seemed confusing to many citizens. This is why it is not sufficient to appeal to people to ‘not panic’. In a crisis, citizens require particular information: why the restrictions are needed, the amount of supply, the length of time that restrictions may be in place, what contingency plans are available and when the next official update will be made.
The same crisis resulted in a fine example of public communication. The government introduced a 24-hour hotline for Bangladeshi expatriates and promoted the media to advertise it. That was a simple rule that gets followed in effective crisis communication: Figure out who is at risk and tell them what they have to do. During an emergency, the critical question can be “What do I do now? A hotline is a practical solution.
One of the other key lessons that came from the July floods was the importance of effective communication and coordination. The Prime Minister’s Office provided information on the situation, rescue operations, shelter centres, relief allocations and coordination with field administrations. The government also announced a 10-point response plan. In a national emergency, a common and reliable source of information can help to minimise confusion. This model could be enhanced further if updates for districts and upazilas are regularly and systematically available. Ministers’ comments have raised additional challenges. State Minister for Primary and Mass Education Bobby Hajjaj’s remarks on Dhaka University, which sparked controversy, demonstrated the rapid change of personal statements into government statements. He responded to the criticism by saying the comments were made informally, and that he had since apologised for having made them.
The lesson concludes that ministers and state ministers are not often seen as ‘normal’ people on the street when they speak out in public. These commentators can very easily be consumed by the government’s image in the public sphere. It should therefore be assumed that cabinet members will receive regular media and social media training as a standard. The same lesson came out of the controversy over the HSC exams and the Education Minister’s ‘farm chicken’ comment. Students were already unhappy about the exams taking place during the rainy season and waterlogging. The comment further fueled the rage. The minister subsequently apologised and any students not able to attend due to weather received an alternative date.
More positive initiatives have been the government’s regular updates and the e-diaries of its first 100 and first 180 days. Providing ministry-related activities, statistics, and plans will enhance accountability. However, these should not be simply lists of achievements. They should also report what they had planned to do, what they did not do, the reasons for any delays, and the new schedule. These are all experiences that highlight a larger institutional issue. Every ministry needs more than a standard public relations officer. It requires a robust communication and crisis management system that can track public opinion, fact-check information and help coordinate the messages.
In the case of any major issues, the government should set up a ‘single source of truth’ so that other agencies do not make conflicting statements. Significant posts and public statements might also be subject to a ‘four-eyes review’ that would require at least two officials to approve them prior to their release. Pre-prepared holding statements and post-crisis communication audits should become standard practice, and digital monitoring and spokesperson training should be done as well.
Above all, public relations cannot be used only to save the government’s reputation. It should be viewed as a mechanism to safeguard public confidence. Six months may be too short to judge a government, but it is enough to see the direction of its communication culture. Effective government communication needs more than publicity, slogans, or defensive statements – it must be timely, accurate, coordinated, empathetic, and credible.
Good information alone does not guarantee good communication. Facts must be delivered clearly, in the right language and at the right time, while acknowledging public concerns. Conflicting messages, insensitive words, or unclear explanations can deepen a crisis; transparency, apology, and empathy can rebuild trust.
These early communication failures therefore point to a larger need: Bangladesh needs a more professional state communication system built on information, accountability, empathy, and strategy rather than defensive or flattering rhetoric. Crisis communication is not simply public relations; it is an essential part of trust, accountability, and effective governance.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is an Associate Professor, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Chittagong; Doctoral Research Scholar, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Jadavpur University, India. Email: [email protected]
