http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7609886.stm
I feel that this sentence from the article is worth mentioning.
"There's no doubt Pakistan is facing a huge problem of Islamic militancy. But many are convinced it can't tackle this if it's seen to be acting at America's behest."
By Barbara Plett
BBC News, Mardan, North West Frontier Province
This is where the issue of perception comes in. There are loads of problems if Pakistan is seen as acting as America's henchmen. First of all, it makes it look at though Pakistan is simply a servant of the United States. The view of the people is that the Pakistani government is simply being a pawn for the United States, mostly due to US president George Bush's rhetoric on his "War on Terror".
Thus, the battle against Islamic insurgency is not seen as being waged by Pakistan but instead, by the USA. Why should Pakistan waste resources and sacrifice Pakistani lives for a foreign country? This will undoubtedly undermine the government support from the public and the military.
Furthermore, it makes the Pakistani government look weak and pathetic. Many Pakistanis are unhappy with the continued US airstrikes on Pakistani soil. They perceive that their government is unable to assert its on sovereignty in its own territory. After all, it would not look good to have a foreign nation launching missiles into your country, would it?
Thus, the solution proposed by Pakistan's newly elected President, Asif Zardari, is to change the perception of both the public and the military. Their mindset has to be changed from "America's War" to "Pakistan's war". Only then, can the Pakistani government garner enough support for the war effort to make a lasting impression on the Islamic militancy.
The support of the military is important for any government in Pakistan.There is a difference between Pakistan helping the United States in an American war and the United States helping Pakistan in a Pakistani war. In one, it looks like Pakistan is merely being cannon fodder. In the other, it seems like Islamabad is waging its own conflicts with assistance from Washington.
When it comes to governments running a country, communication plays an undoubtedly important role, even though it is not as explicit as talking face to face. The government regularly communicates with the public not only through verbal means like official announcements, but by also using non-verbal means like their military actions.
A failure in communication between the government and its people can result in misunderstandings and the government being seen in a negative light. This is when the public and government perception of certain issues start to differ.
In this case, Islamabad's silence against Washington's continued missile strikes have led to many Pakistanis seeing Islamabad's impotence against Washington's violation of Pakistani borders. Lack of proper communication has also led the public to believe that the war against Islamic militants is not their war.
This goes to show that the concept of perception is extremely important when running a country. How are you going to gain the support of your subjects if they perceive you as simply a puppet of a foreign power?
8 comments:
this is a deep subject to discuss, especially with the means Mr Zardari took to win the elections. the naming of his children to late wife's family name has been perceived by both the positive and negative side.
on another note, running a country takes more than just communication. yes, i agree that bad communication will tear a country apart, but too much of it can also cause an information overflow. citizens torn between leaders with opposing views may cause an uprising or coop.
as long as leaders are on the same page, having good communications will help. if not, no amount of communicating can settle the differences.
we need not go as far as to Pakistan to see the importance of perception of the government and the relative support rating that is has actually. everywhere in the world, in fact, plays by the same rules. no government will try to shed itself in a bad light although there may be many problems within the governing party. as such, communications with them is crucial for good governance.
I agree with Zed. Communication is of course, essential to running a country but there is certainly more to it. Otherwise, running a country will be too easy!
However, the fact is that most leaders tend to be good communicators. After all, you cannot be a leader if you have no followers.
Well, I like foreign news so I might as well talk about one of my interests and its relations to communications!
The United States have always been a world powerhouse in terms of politics,economical structure and of cause,military power.In very layman terms,they are "bullies" at times using their resources to try solve world issues such as terrorism at the expense of other nations,Pakistan etc.However,i agree with Zed's view on information.Too much - information overflow ---> opposite views --->uprising or a coup d etat which a country like Pakistan is absolutely capable of,with Bhutto's assasination a good example.The public has to stand together and support its goverment in times of turmoil and success.They should stand together and should not rise up against the goverment.However,with the trust that is placed upon the government,they should rule with competency,fairness,maintain law and order and most of all be strong and firm in their decisions to stand up for their people. These has to be communicated to the people via their non-verbal actions.
I agree with the point in the last paragraph that to be able to be an effective leader, one must be able to 'convince' his followers through his actions and decisions. However, when it comes to communicating among leaders, it is not just only having to be an effective leader individually, but also to agree on a common point of view among leaders.
I agree with the point Zed made "As long as leaders are on the same page, having good communications will help. If not, no amount of communicating can settle the differences" and the point Lucas made "communications with them is crucial for governance".
Therefore, I feel that leaders not just only have to be effective themselves but also when working with others in other countries.
In a diplomatic chaos, when rights and wrongs are blurred beyond recognition, it gets harder to distinguish between the has to be, and has been.
The actions begets questions, and each war ingredient added, is an exhibit of unrest. The pakistani authority must address the roots of failed governance, and only then a path of solutions will be uncovered.
It is never to late to act, nor take a stand. Before it gets worse, the time is now.
Regards,
Shawn Lee Wei Bin
Its true that communication is essential when it comes to governing. The government needs to know how to communicate effectively and accurately to a mass population of people. Also, not to forget, the government must also be transparent to the public and not hide ulterior motives.
I remember reading this one, and it still surprises me as to how easily Pakistan decided to put Asif Ali Zardari into power. We all know, Mr 10% and his past. Pervev Musharaf their previous president was very effective in his ruling in my opinion. But something about Asif Zardari just doesnt feel right. Probably a perceptive thing. I dont know. That, time will tell.
Post a Comment