Anti-corruption communication
Communication in highlighting corruption has been dismissed by many as being non-serious. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s article reminds us that when it is done well it is not only important, but essential to highlight what our governments would prefer we didn't see or pay attention to. It is noted that “Compelling and accessible communications strategies can help pro-democracy groups reach new centrist audiences, while strengthening the sector’s legitimacy at a time of shrinking civic space.” They note that identifying core values, like freedom and fairness, may appeal to the public more than the abstract concept of democracy.
Why do we care? A large part of messaging on corruption is trying to find what resonates, and therefore, what should be done. What we have found is that simply noting that corruption is bad, which in turn stokes outrage, then we should try to provide solutions. We also have issues when trying to define corruption – and who is the audience. We sometimes simply make it an economic issue, but as recent protests in countries like Nepal and Serbia, there is a focus by the population on unfairness, inequality and government inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Essentially, what is needed is to provide agency to the public, which can help counteract fatalism and resignation. Each country has its own voice and context and to start with agency is key to all messaging.
Link: