What worse could a communicator do than what George Flessas did to Nikos Christodoulides? It is such a blatant and childish mistake that it leaves no room for logical explanation. Was there any chance that it could have been missed?
This is undoubtedly a frivolous action. Apart from the moral dimension of the issue, a simple reading of the landscape and the dysfunctional situation that has prevailed in the Democratic Rally in recent months is enough to understand the dangers of such an attempt. There was no way it could not be perceived, given that the then protagonists are still in the forefront and even in key positions in the opposing camp. Beyond that, I think the important thing here is not whether or not there was a chance of it being noticed, but the lack of respect for the partner and, by extension, for public opinion. In the end, instead of discussing the candidate's vision and positions, we end up discussing copy-paste, who ultimately discovered the copying, conspiracy theories, etc.
A communicator will certainly make a speech more interesting, more engaging, but certainly cannot replace the politician, who is, or should be, the author of the speech, right?
Ideally this should be the formula, but the truth is that a politician/candidate has very limited time at his disposal. His schedule is busy and he does not always have the time required for writing communication texts (announcements, speeches, opinion pieces, etc.). This task is most often undertaken by close associates (communication consultants, press office staff), usually after a briefing and exchange of views. But I would say that it is also a matter of character. Sometimes they are drafted by themselves, depending on political circumstances or the political weight of an upcoming position. Other times the text may be prepared initially by the partner and the politician/candidate may approve it or request changes. In general, the more involvement the politician/candidate has, the more authentic a speech or public intervention is.
We have seen politicians follow their instincts and ignore communicators, and vice versa, we have seen many politicians blindly trust them. Obviously both of these approaches are wrong.
I agree with you. I believe moderation and balance is needed. That is why good chemistry is a component of successful cooperation. Neither extreme is beneficial, nor is the other. Each party involved should bring their own knowledge and experience to the team. From there it takes coming together on what is really important. Many times substance and valuable time is lost in details and trivial things. Other times politicians get carried away by their inner circle and believe that what they hear is what the public believes. This is why the use of scientific tools is important in the strategy formulation and adjustment process and helps to strike this balance.
What are the role and tasks of communicators? Do they produce policy? Do they shape the vision of candidates? And what are their limits?
Policy orientation, vision and programmatic positions are the responsibility of candidates and parties. Communication consultants are called upon to highlight the work and positions of the candidates. They are called upon to improve their ability to communicate their messages properly and to respond to the arguments of their opponents. Communicators can advise a politician, but it is not their responsibility to produce policy. They do not shape the candidates' positions and vision. They can elaborate and edit it to make it more easily accepted or perceived by society. Among other things, they have an advisory role on a number of issues such as the formulation of communication strategy and tactics, the effective promotion of actions, the management of potential negative publicity, and the proper use of modern and traditional communication media.
Has the role or even the potential of communicators been mythologised in the end? Is it because of the weakening of the organizational competence of parties and social changes that political communication is largely called upon to bridge the gap between politicians and citizens?
My belief is that in recent years the ball seems to have been dropped somewhere in relation to the broader perception of the tasks of communicators. It is possible that the election of Obama in 2008 and the ensuing debate with respect to the tools and practices adopted may have influenced the broader perception. There is indeed an exaggeration. Somewhere the hiring of a communicator became a matter of prestige, something of a new fashion. Communicators themselves are to some extent to blame for this, as while they care about the image and reputation of their colleagues, they seem to be indifferent to the prevailing view of themselves. Sometimes they sometimes insidiously allow the perception to be perpetuated that they are much more than what they really are or should be. I believe that communication alone does not win elections. The recipe for success has many variables, all equally important. The personality and background of the candidate is of capital importance, as is financial ability, being surrounded by competent colleagues, a clean record, etc. Another element, is organizational ability. That is, whether there is an infrastructure and mechanism that will work during the campaign. From there, communicators are useful for any candidate or political entity and can contribute substantially to the electoral effort. At the same time, however, their mission is specific. The pieces of the puzzle are many and without them there are no easy or magic solutions. Barack Obama would not have won the election either if he had not inspired citizens as a personality and if he had not had thousands of volunteers working alongside him all over the United States.
How do you see Cypriot politicians, in general, in terms of their communication skills? And how well do you think they use the tools of political communication?
In general, efforts are being made to communicate more effectively with the electorate. This does not mean that the practices chosen always work. Sometimes there is a tendency to exaggerate or take actions that are outside the "comfort zone" of the candidates themselves in an attempt to generate interest. Another element is that many times candidates invest more time on media and social media communication activities, forgetting what is most important. That nothing replaces the warmth of human contact. Direct, that is, direct, communication with the electorate. Especially in a small country like Cyprus, where interpersonal relationships are still of paramount importance. At the same time, it is well known that human contact between citizens and politicians in Cyprus is quite often not limited to acquaintance and political discussion. We know that Cypriot political culture has its own characteristics, with groveling and buffoonery or attendance at weddings, funerals and memorial services often being a voting criterion rather than political work and political positions.
Contents of this article including associated images are belongs Cyprus Times
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or Cyprus Times
Source
