The coronavirus disease
Introduction
The coronavirus disease pandemic creates an area where one may analyze government versus political communication by criticizing how members of the government and political forces handle communication during this time. There is an emerging study on political communication strategies and how this may differ from government communication (XX). While political communication expressly created a message with the purpose of having a political influence from the listener, government communication is a periodic transfer of information to the public with the sole intent of advising the public. These two types of communication differ regarding the following characteristics; intent, who delivers the message, when the message is delivered, how, where and the structure of the message. Through an analysis of China’s communication with the world and specific countries such as the US and Korea’s, one may sufficiently analyze the differences between government and political communication.
Background to the Issue
The corona virus pandemic shines a spotlight on the communication issues in governments through an analysis of how different countries have handles the matter. The pandemic is recorded to have originated in Wuhan, China. Although the disease started in December 2019, the world came to know about it in 2020. The onset of the disease was a significant period because it would have made the difference in determining how extensive the damage was. China illustrated a lack of transparency and the breakdown between government and political communication. China’s government is autocratic and it controls and manages all media outlets and channels. Their impact of their communication policy had deeply impacted and crippled the world because it robbed the rest of the world a fighting chance against the disease. The country’s communication strategy thus emerges from a political perspective and intertwines with characteristics of government communication.
Political communication is characterized by a need to exercise power or control over another and in this case over the nation. Political communication also happens when there is a need to directly or indirectly influence public policy. China wanted to maintain their national image and it is a country which prides on maintaining the façade of strength. Admitting that there was a deadly outbreak would be seen as a sign of weakness. The country therefore failed to communicate the outbreak to the rest of the world and in so doing ignored the risk of a global spread of the disease. The Chinese also fear reprisal and harassment by the government if they are whistleblowers. A brave doctor from Wuhan blew the whistle on the coronavirus pandemic and through his social media channel, the rest of the world was able to prepare and stop a catastrophic spread of the disease. Only after china placed contingency measures on the disease did the conversation surrounding the Coronavirus stop being political and it became governmental.
In contrast, government communication involves specific agencies and departments. Since political communication happens to influence a public policy, once a policy is passed and implemented, government policy happens to advice the public on the policy and other decisions. Government policy after strategies were implemented included releases on the statistics of the affected populations, explanation of the measures to combat the disease and updates on how the population would adapt to the pandemic. The pandemic has created a stall and crawl in most economies. It is the government’s prerogative to ensure that they manage the population’s anxieties and needs in order to sustain them in the midst of the pandemic. Transparency is essential during these times because it ensures the society will survive until a cure of vaccine is developed.
The issue and the stakeholder
As mentioned above, China first denied the outbreak and it is only after whistleblowers alerted the world of the disease did the country confirm that there was indeed a respiratory outbreak. After the exposure the country appointed a top government appointed expert to say a mysterious respiratory illness that has killed at least four people can be transmitted by humans, heightening concern about the outbreak. Due to the communication strategy, nature of the government and a delayed admission of the outbreak, it became a political tussle between China and the rest of the world. The lack of proper communication from the emergent country also created grounds for a spread of miscommunication and fallacies regarding the origin of the disease. Although the country divulged the information in the end, the slight delay had already created a ripple effect based on the number of people and foreign nationals visiting the country since/
There is no change on China’s communication issue. It is still a centralized government and the world can hope that the information they share regarding the disease is up to date and true. Starting in 2012, liberalizing reforms were rolled back in china while censorship and political control increased. This has impaired civil society’s ability to detect and sound the alarm on problems (XXhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0872-3). Their emphasis on the public image of the country has failed the world because had they admitted the issue as it arose, they would have intercepted the pandemic while it was still an epidemic or in the early stages of infection. The world is currently scrutinizing China, especially the president of the US, Donald Trump. The breakdown in communication also provides an insight into global economies. During the pandemic, tension between china and the US has risen as they both blame each other for the disease.
Analysis
Succinct government communication was necessary from the beginning of the outbreak. Governments ought to have created a link with the public and given them all relevant information without taking the pandemic lightly. Due to a disregard of the advised strategy by medical professionals and bodies, the China and Korea have tens of thousands of their citizens dead. Political information seeks to influence the public perception and political individuals take every opportunity involving communication of serious matters to promote their political agendas. Communication from the presidents of both states started with political motivations and speculation as to whether the pandemic was as serious as the medical professionals warned. The countries experienced a breakdown in communication where different officials said different things. For this reason, the communication turned out to be political in the beginning. It is only after the pandemic slowed their economy that these two countries expresses government communication.
Government communication should have flexibility and there should be good communication between government agencies. The war between the US and China may have contributed to a disregard for the seriousness of the pandemic by turning the conversation political. The two countries blamed each other for the origins of the pandemic and the difficult relations
In the wake of the pandemic, the two countries illustrated confused bureaucracies racing to come to grips with an unfolding crisis(https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-18/what-went-wrong-with-how-italy-handled-coronavirus/12062242). China lacked transparency in the Pandemic which has arguably caused the deadly spread of the virus globally. Had there been a transparent government communication for the disease, the world would not have been as significantly impacted as it is now.
China has an authoritarian government. Every form of communication is monitored and only that which is allowed is communicated. The world witnessed a harassment of the doctor who blew the whistle on the disease. There is much speculation surrounding the origin of the virus. Such is an illustration on the need for a single source of government communication. Government communication is therefore more of a strategy to advise the public based on an event, policy or other emergent issues. Although China failed in its initial communication, there was a subsequent sharing of information to help the world combat the illness. China still remains to be an authoritarian nation and they have prevented publishing of scientific information regarding the disease in a bit to try and control the narrative. For the country, this move is both political and governmental communication. It is political because they want to have a say in the image of the country regarding management and origin of the disease. The communication is also governmental because they informed the public on how to deal with the disease, not as a political move but as advice.
Once the world had perceived the coronavirus disease as a global threat, the country made all necessary strides to protect their population. For instance, the country sent 217 medical teams and 25,633 medical members to Hubei province. The move remains the world’s largest collection of instant medical personnel and materials in recent decades where their efforts also created 19 makeshift hospitals. This information was shared with the world so that they can learn how to best manage those infected with the disease if the infection rate happened at an alarming rate at the peak of the infection rate. Through the transparent communication other governments have managed to adopt the management technique and prepare for the peak of the infection accordingly. The country also made other reports regarding the best treatment for the disease and periodically updated their statistics on those infected, dead and recovered. The communication after the world critiqued them of their management strategy turned governmental because their reports contributed to public interests and democracy of the global public sphere.