As the year draws to a close, some media organisations will inevitably embark on their annual ritual of “grading” ministers on their performance. Historically, these scorecards have lacked robust, rigorous, and objective criteria.
One or two isolated anecdotes are often invoked selectively to justify a predetermined grading, rather than advancing any substantive or comprehensive analysis.
Too often, such evaluations reflect personal preference or political sentiment, reducing them to expressions of affinity or aversion towards a particular minister rather than fact-based assessments.
In a recent opinion piece, Adriaan Basson provocatively asks: “Psst! Has anyone seen GCIS [Government Communication and Information System]?” It is a question that, at first glance, might seem a compelling journalistic call for accountability. Yet, beneath its rhetorical flourish lies a fundamental misreading of the GCIS and the imperatives of government communication.
To ask whether GCIS is “visible” in the traditional media sense is to misunderstand its mandate. Equating effective communication with media visibility misinterprets the GCIS mandate.
GCIS is not merely a press office or a reactive commentator. It is, constitutionally and strategically, the nerve centre of government communication, tasked with coordination, guidance, and oversight across all departments, spheres, and levels of government.
Its responsibilities extend beyond the narrow confines of media coverage to the far more consequential sphere of citizen engagement, public trust, and strategic coherence. That they may not appear as flashy front-page stories does not render them absent.
In fact, the “invisibility” lament betrays a narrow conception of what government communication in the 21st century entails. It exposes a limited understanding of contemporary government communication.
Developmental stories of government achievement, from community upliftment projects to citizen engagement initiatives, rarely meet newsroom thresholds driven largely by controversy and spectacle.
GCIS, operating within this ecosystem, cannot manufacture headlines, but it ensures that government messaging reaches the most important audience: the citizens.
How many journalists attend Imbizos, witness community outreach programmes or examine the strategic imperatives of government communication? Any critique without such reflection is both incomplete and misleading.
Rather than ask whether GCIS can be “seen”, perhaps the more pressing question is whether media and public discourse can adapt to see beyond the superficial.
Visibility in headlines is a poor proxy for effectiveness. Strategic leadership, citizen reach, and policy coherence are the true metrics of performance.
Basson’s article, though rhetorically sharp, underscores a broader issue: public understanding of government communication is often shallow, and media coverage can perpetuate skewed perceptions by over-emphasising absence and under-reporting outcomes.
A balanced approach requires journalists to engage GCIS leadership, understand operational realities, and report on the full scope of citizen-centred work.
To hold institutions accountable, we must first seek to understand them in their entirety, rather than decry their supposed invisibility. Despite resource constraints, GCIS is neither absent nor inactive. Its work is structural, strategic, and citizen-centred – a far cry from the superficial visibility headlines demand.
In an era of abundant information but scarce understanding, government communication should be judged on sustained impact, not spectacle. The work of GCIS is further complicated by the unique political environment occasioned by the GNU.
The most pressing challenge is ensuring collective adherence to communication policies, protocols, and principles. As the nerve centre of communication, GCIS must ensure all parties to the GNU uphold coherent, unified, and consistent messaging, reflecting a government that governs collectively.
Moments of strain have tested the communication environment. At times, ministers have adopted defiant or partisan postures inconsistent with collective leadership principles. For communicators accustomed to cabinet members acting in unison and government speaking with one voice, the current period is uncharted territory.
Some political leaders seek personal or party-political credit for reforms predating their tenure. This behaviour creates three critical governance risks: distortion of the public record by ignoring prior groundwork; competition within the cabinet, undermining trust and collegiality; and violation of established communication protocols that demand accuracy, unity, and respect for institutional continuity.
Government cannot function effectively if ministers communicate on parallel tracks, issue contradictory statements, or treat the cabinet as a partisan battlefield.
Many of the achievements that are currently being celebrated – such as stabilising energy supply, restoring investor confidence, accelerating reforms, and rebuilding institutions – are the result of multi-year commitments initiated long before the GNU.
Government work is cyclical and cumulative; progress reflects sustained effort rather than short-term visibility. The GNU did not start with a blank slate. It inherited and accelerated an existing delivery agenda. Communicators and leaders have a duty to acknowledge this continuity.
The GNU’s overarching message must remain disciplined and consistent: We govern together because the people instructed us to do so. We will deliver together because the nation demands it. And we will speak with one voice because unity is essential for public trust.
Durable governance relies on strong institutions, sound policy design and disciplined communication, not spin, sound bites or political one-upmanship.
- Monama is a government communicator. He writes in his personal capacity
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.