In governance, communication is not decoration. It is infrastructure. Policies may be designed in offices, debated in chambers and executed through bureaucracies, but they are understood by citizens only when they are properly explained.

This is the role of the spokesman.

The spokesman is meant to be the bridge between power and the public. His responsibility is to interpret policy, clarify decisions and ensure that citizens understand both the direction and the limitations of government. In mature democracies, the quality of political communication often determines the quality of public trust.

In Nigeria, however, something curious has happened.

The spokes have left the wheel.

What was once meant to stabilise governance has increasingly become one of the factors destabilising public discourse. The office of the spokesman, rather than elevating the conversation around governance, has in many instances reduced it to noise, confrontation and spectacle.

The problem is not merely about individual personalities. It is structural, cultural and increasingly institutional.

The first flaw lies in the basis upon which many spokesmen are appointed.

In far too many cases, the role is treated as a political reward rather than a professional responsibility. Individuals are appointed not because they possess expertise in communication, public policy or media management, but because they demonstrated loyalty during elections or aggression on social media during campaigns.

The campaign warrior becomes the government spokesman.

Unfortunately, defending a candidate during an election is not the same as explaining governance to a nation. One requires enthusiasm. The other requires knowledge, restraint and clarity.

Yet Nigeria often appoints the enthusiastic and hopes competence will somehow appear later.

It rarely does.

A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Role

The second problem is conceptual. Many political spokesmen do not appear to understand the office they occupy.

A spokesman is not a political gladiator. He is not a permanent combatant in media battles. His role is interpretative, not confrontational. He translates complex policy decisions into language the public can understand.

However, many Nigerian spokesmen approach their duties as if they were participants in a continuous political boxing match. Interviews become battlegrounds. Journalists become opponents. Questions become perceived attacks.

The result is predictable. Instead of explaining government policy, spokesmen spend their time defending egos.

The Confusion Between Communication and Aggression

Nigeria has gradually developed a political communication culture that rewards aggression rather than clarity.

The ability to shout, trend online, or insult critics is increasingly mistaken for a communication skill. Yet communication is an intellectual discipline. It requires comprehension of the subject matter, emotional control and the ability to persuade without hostility.

Aggression requires none of these.

A spokesman who does not understand policy cannot communicate it. His only available tool becomes volume.

Unfortunately, volume is not information.

The Erosion of Public Discourse

The cumulative effect of these weaknesses has been the steady decline of the quality of Nigeria’s public conversation.

Serious policy questions are often reduced to personality conflicts. Fiscal debates collapse into partisan arguments. Institutional issues are reframed as tribal confrontations.

Citizens who tune in expecting explanations of governance instead encounter shouting matches that resemble reality television more than democratic dialogue.

When this pattern repeats consistently, the public lowers its expectations. Intellectual engagement from government representatives becomes rare enough to be treated as exceptional.

The national conversation becomes poorer as a result.

Institutional Damage and Public Distrust

Perhaps the most damaging consequence is the erosion of trust.

When government communication fails, citizens turn to speculation, rumour and political propaganda as substitutes for information. The absence of clear explanations creates an environment where misinformation thrives.

Trust in institutions declines, not always because the policy itself is flawed, but because the explanation of the policy is incompetent.

Ironically, the office designed to build public understanding begins to produce public confusion.

Correcting this trend requires deliberate reform in how political communication is understood and structured.

Professionalising the Office of the Spokesman

Political communication must be treated as a professional discipline rather than a political reward system.

The role of spokesman should require demonstrable competence in communication strategy, policy literacy and media engagement. Governments routinely appoint experts to manage finance, law and infrastructure. The same seriousness should apply to those responsible for communicating government actions.

Competence must replace patronage.

Embedding Policy Literacy in Political Communication

A spokesman cannot explain what he does not understand.

Media aides should be deeply briefed on policy frameworks, legislative boundaries and administrative procedures. Their effectiveness depends on their ability to interpret complex governance issues accurately and translate them into accessible language.

When spokesmen understand policy, they respond with facts rather than defensiveness.

Replacing the Culture of Combat with the Culture of Explanation

Democratic communication is not warfare.

Journalists asking questions are not adversaries. Critics raising concerns are not enemies of the state. In functional democracies, scrutiny is recognised as part of governance accountability.

The spokesman’s role is not to silence criticism but to respond to it with evidence and clarity.

Calm explanation is far more persuasive than theatrical confrontation.

Institutionalising Transparent Communication Systems

Governments should rely less on reactive responses from individual spokesmen and more on structured information systems.

Regular press briefings, policy documentation, data releases and transparent updates ensure that information reaches the public consistently. When government communicates proactively, the pressure on spokesmen to constantly defend decisions is reduced.

Transparency, when institutionalised, reduces suspicion.

Restoring the Educational Role of Political Communication

In a country where political literacy remains uneven, communication from government must perform an educational function.

Citizens should be helped to understand how policies are made, what constitutional limitations exist, and what timelines govern implementation. A spokesman should not only defend decisions but also illuminate the workings of governance itself.

When citizens understand the system, they judge government more fairly.

A Final Reflection

Nigeria does not lack individuals capable of performing this role effectively. The country is filled with journalists, analysts and communication professionals who possess both the intellectual discipline and public sensitivity required for the task.

What is lacking is a political culture that values communication as a governance function rather than a political weapon.

Until that culture changes, the spokes will continue leaving the wheel.

And when the spokes leave the wheel, the direction of governance becomes unstable. The movement continues, but control is lost.

A nation cannot build trust in its institutions if those entrusted to explain them cannot rise above noise.

Political communication should clarify governance, not cloud it.

When it fails, the catastrophe is not merely rhetorical. It is democratic.

Kunle Lawal

Executive Director, Electoral College Nigeria