COMMUNICATION AS NATIONAL BRAND STRATEGY
Beyond domestic governance, communication policy also affects how nations are perceived internationally. Countries today compete not only economically but also reputationally. Scholars such as Simon Anholt have demonstrated that national reputation, often referred to as nation branding, influences foreign investment, tourism, diplomacy, and global partnerships. Countries that manage their communication strategically shape their global image deliberately.
Nigeria, however, rarely approaches communication at this strategic level. We simply wake up and announce some lazy branding activity that’s not steeped in policy and strategy. And implementation is poorly organized, poorly funded, and not designed for an enduring campaign. We usually want to rebrand after three months of lazy NTA, FRCN jingles and lately poor CNN ads. It hardly shows commitment.
A well-designed Public Communication Policy could therefore serve not only domestic governance but also national branding, projecting Nigeria more coherently to the world.
A MOMENT FOR REFORM
Governor Sanwo-Olu’s remarks highlight an important truth: governments often recognise the communication gap but struggle to address its structural causes. The solution lies not in better press releases or more interviews. The solution lies in institutionalising public communication as a core element of governance.
Nigeria needs a National Public Communication Policy.
From that policy would flow communication strategies, operational plans, and coordinated messaging across every level of government, from the federal government to states and even local governments. Only then can the country move from reactive explanations to deliberate communication leadership.
In the first part of this discussion, prompted by the observation of Babajide Sanwo-Olu that governments often struggle to communicate policies effectively, we established that Nigeria’s problem is not merely poor messaging. The deeper issue is structural: Nigeria lacks a modern national framework for public communication. And without such a framework, government communication inevitably becomes reactive, fragmented and inconsistent. Policy explanations emerge only after controversy has already erupted, leaving officials constantly trying to repair narratives rather than shaping them.
The logical next question therefore becomes: what should a National Public Communication Policy for Nigeria actually look like?
COMMUNICATION AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNANCE
Modern states increasingly recognise communication not as a peripheral function but as a core instrument of governance. Public communication performs several critical roles:
1. Policy interpretation – helping citizens understand the intent and implications of government action.
2. Public trust building – strengthening legitimacy and democratic accountability.
3. Behavioural influence – encouraging citizens to support reforms or adopt beneficial behaviours.
4. National reputation management – shaping how the country is perceived internationally.
Scholars such as Joseph Nye describe the ability of states to shape perceptions and narratives as a form of “soft power.” Countries that manage communication strategically amplify their influence far beyond traditional diplomacy.
THE STRUCTURE OF A NATIONAL PUBLIC COMMUNICATION POLICY
A Nigerian Public Communication Policy would need to address several foundational elements. See a few:
1. Defining Public Communication
The policy must first clarify what public communication means within the Nigerian governance context. Public communication should be defined as:
The strategic, transparent and coordinated communication of government policies, programmes and national priorities to citizens and global audiences.
This definition moves communication beyond the outdated concept of simply “disseminating information.” Instead, it recognises communication as strategic engagement between government and society.
2. Institutional Coordination
Nigeria’s communication architecture is currently scattered across ministries, agencies and spokespersons operating independently. A modern framework would require a central coordinating institution. Countries such as the United Kingdom manage this through the Government Communication Service, which ensures coherence across departments.
Nigeria could establish a National Public Communication Council responsible for:
a. Coordinating communication across ministries
b. Aligning federal and state communication strategies
c. Maintaining national messaging coherence
d. Overseeing major policy communication campaigns
Such coordination would ensure that government communication is consistent and strategically aligned.
3. Policy Communication Protocols
Every major policy initiative should be accompanied by a structured communication plan. This would include:
a. Policy explanation documents written in accessible language
b. Stakeholder engagement strategies
c. Media communication frameworks
d. Public feedback mechanisms
Countries such as Canada operate under formal communication frameworks such as the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Policy on
Communications, which ensures that federal institutions communicate consistently and transparently.
Nigeria could adopt similar standards to ensure clarity and accountability.
4. Crisis Communication Systems
All Governments inevitably face crises: economic shocks, security challenges, public health emergencies etc. Without structured
communication systems, crises can quickly escalate into national panic. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how critical communication is during emergencies. Countries that communicated clearly, such as New Zealand, maintained higher levels of public trust and compliance with health policies.
A Nigerian Public Communication Policy must therefore include formal crisis communication protocols guiding how government communicates during emergencies.
5. Professionalization of Government Communication
Another key requirement is the professionalization of government communication roles. Too often, communication appointments are treated primarily as political positions rather than professional roles. And with due respect to my esteemed colleagues who are journalists, governments prefer to appoint journalists into roles that marketing communication specialists ought to fill because governments’ understanding is to use the media to play a role that marketing communication and brand management ought to play. Journalism essentially trains to write by style of communication, and hardly structured to receive feedback and process with an overall strategic plan. And when the people and critics push back the journalists playing the role of media aides also push back as many are not trained to manage this kind of interface. Many become aggressive and end up accumulating negative feelings for their principals. A trained brands and marketing communication specialist would handle this differently the same way they manage their brands and consumers. Of course by all means the communication structure and architecture will include trained and experienced journalists but their role will be different from what they do now.
