DOUBLESPEAK AND CONTRADICTION

January 28, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under Features/Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

The need for a political party, indeed for any organization to speak with a clear and consistent voice cannot be underscored. Doublespeak and contradiction are sources of disservice and disquiet within an organization.

They can tear the organization apart; split it into factions and send mixed signals that confuse those who are supposed to be receiving the messages sent out by that organization.

Political parties are organizations are therefore under a similar obligation to be clear, consistent and coherent in their approaches and public pronouncements.

Modern day politics is a complex and sophisticated process. Within political parties, the idea of the maximum leader who is the repository of all knowledge and the purveyor of all information to the public is archaic. The modern day political party must have structure as well as rules and responsibilities.

The responsibilities are delegated to many individuals who while they may not always contradict each another, may speak in different tones and convey a different message from what the organization holds.

APNU has had its problems with communication. In the past the ruling Peoples Progressive Party Civic has accused the right hand of APNU of not knowing what its left hand is doing.

This year again, APNU has found itself in a situation whereby it could be interpreted or perceived that there are gaps in communication between some of its leaders. These gaps, it is believed, have led to charges and countercharges between APNU and the ruling PPPC.

This latest controversy, incidentally, occurred around the same time that APNU had indicated that it did not wish confrontation over the Budget and also around the same time that it raised expectations about an improvement in its relations with the ruling party when it voted in favor of two sets of Bills that came before the House.

Unfortunately, the exchanges over the Budget consultations have altered the tone of the earlier exchanges and could even force skeptics to question whether confrontation can be avoided.

The prospects for improved relationships between APNU and the ruling party were further dashed when it was revealed that the party intends to pursue sanctions against the Minister of Finance for his failure to comply with motions and resolutions related to NICIL.

Any party serious about avoiding confrontation and keen to build on the positive cooperation that was achieved during the last sitting of the National Assembly would have been better advised to avoid intemperate exchanges and threats.

APNU must speak with one voice and everyone must sing in unison. The tone must be consistent. Unfortunately because there are many spokespersons within APNU there is always the risk that someone may speak in a manner that can be misinterpreted and which can go against the position that the partnership wishes to adopt.

IF APNU, for example, wants to avoid confrontation over the Budget, it would have been better advised to withhold the threat of sanctions. It may feel that the government is not serious about consultations but by refraining from a bitter exchange, it would avoid altering the existing political mood which had seen the parties support measures tabled in the National Assembly during the last sitting and which had augured well for the future.

The PPPC has always been careful not to send contradictory signals. But even that party at times falls victim to this problem. The PPPC has however long had one person who speaks weekly to the media about decisions of the Cabinet, the award of contracts and matters of public interest.

In so doing the ruling PPPC has been able to generally maintain a consistent line.

APNU may have to consider the same so as to avoid sending mixed signals. They had, for example, hailed the contributions of miners in the gold sector. This is an important constituency for them. But when later there was a comment from within APNU about the destruction of the environment that miners are making, it sent out mixed signals as to just where APNU stood on gold mining.

This is all the more reason why APNU should try as much as possible to speak with one voice because when there are too many persons speaking, it does affect the consistency of the message and the tone in which it is delivered.

When the tone and the message are not consistent it confuses the receiver. When the tone and the message are consistent but at odds with other previous commitments, the listener is left in a position of uncertainty.
And when your supporters are confused and uncertain, they simply become apathetic.