The government seems to be putting its communications in order. In fact, it has decided to bring back its traditional press conferences. In addition, the government spokesperson has moved to the Prime Minister's office. Communications specialist Bacary Domingo Mané explains these aspects here.

How do you interpret the decision to bring back government press conferences?

This press conference was a great moment of political communication, as the ministers who faced the press were able to explain their agenda, what they had done, and what they intended to do. The journalists' questions allowed for in-depth analysis of the answers provided. In any case, it was a good method of political communication, and especially of government communication. With the absence of these meetings, many began to criticize government communication, saying that the government did not communicate much or at all. It was at this time that the formula of the spokesperson who spoke at the end of each cabinet meeting was introduced, with Minister Moustapha Njekk Sarré (former Government Spokesperson).

Did it have the desired effect?

It didn't have a real impact from my point of view.   While journalists receive the press release, while RTS reads the press release from start to finish, if the government spokesperson also came to give us the details of what was said during the cabinet meetings, it was too much. So for me, the fact that at a given moment, the government put aside these meetings with the press has somewhat altered government communication.

What will the resumption of this communication format bring that is new?

Resuming this exercise is an excellent thing because it allows us to know what ministers are doing in their offices. The minister must communicate with the populations for whom he is appointed. And these populations need information. Jean-Marie Cotteret, in his three essays, says that political communication first allows us to provide information, to change people's opinions. That is to say, people may have a negative opinion about something, but as soon as the person speaks, these people will rethink their way of thinking. This is what he calls changing opinion. The third thing is behavior change. That is to say, today, government political communication should lead populations to change their behavior. But for behavior change to occur, these populations would first need to have relevant information. So the fact that the government interrupted ministers' meetings with the media, for me, had a negative impact on government communication. Since it's back, it's a great thing.

What will this actually bring?

This will provide more details, more information. What's interesting is the choice of ministers. You have the Ministers of the Interior, Sanitation, and Education. So the choice isn't accidental. It's dependent on the current events we're experiencing. For example, for the Minister of the Interior, upon his arrival, he initiated operations to relieve congestion. Obviously, many Senegalese welcomed this, but we really need to communicate a lot about this. Because people had habits and some had occupied the streets, especially street vendors and beggars. So we really need political communication to better explain the meaning of the Ministry of the Interior's actions. And we give him the opportunity to better explain to the population the measures taken by the ministry. So the government's press conferences, for me, are really an opportunity to allow the various ministers to delve into the actions they take on a daily basis in their departments.

The thing to avoid in this exercise?

What we must avoid is falling into the trap of polemical questions, which, in my view, risk drowning out the essentials. I'm not saying that journalists don't have the right to ask any question. That's not the problem. The problem is the answer that will be served up by the ministers. When someone asks a polemical question, in the answer, you can avoid this polemical aspect and refocus the debate on the essentials.

We have seen that controversial issues, such as accountability and judicial matters, are not on the agenda...

Yes, that's what I call petty quarrels. In communication, we must avoid petty quarrels, meaning that these controversial subjects can distract us from the true scope of government action. This is not the time. It's true, we're talking about accountability, but we must also remember that at the time, officials from the financial prosecutor's office had made a sort of assessment of their work. So, I think the government did well not to include in this face-to-face discussion topics that could have distracted us from the essentials.

Government communications, like the new government spokesperson, has been housed in the Prime Minister's office. What is your interpretation of this?

I think Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko wants to have control over government communication, because he himself made a statement a few months ago to show that this government communication needs to be strengthened. Moreover, it was from this statement that we saw that the government spokesperson was appointed and housed at the Prime Minister's Office. Because being housed at the Prime Minister's Office means that there is direct contact with the head of government. So she will have visibility on the work of all the ministers since she is housed at the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister is the head of the government. So it is completely logical that we house the spokesperson at the Prime Minister's Office. For me, it is for reasons of efficiency in speaking, in explanations, in exchanges with journalists.

Comments collected by Youssouf SANE