Populist Communication Traps: Effective, But Obscure Facts

There is no denying that communication with a personal touch is easier to touch the public's emotions. This style is effective in building an image of leadership that is present and caring. However, it is this effectiveness that makes it potentially dangerous when not balanced with strengthening the institutional narrative.

The effect of this overly personal communication can be chained. First, the public slowly no longer sees the state as a system, but as an extension of the figure who is currently popular. As a result, public loyalty can shift from obedience to the law and institutions to loyalty to certain figures. In the end, this can hinder bureaucratic reform, because the system seems to only work if there is a dominant populist figure.

This type of communication often obscures the essential fact that a program is the result of collective work, funded by the state budget (APBN/APBD) which is the people's money, and implemented by various technical units through a long procedural process.

Political Branding vs. Administrative Ethics: Where is the Limit?

Building an image and personal closeness is certainly part of a political communication strategy. There is nothing wrong with this as long as it does not sacrifice the structure and ethics of public accountability.

That limit is violated when narratives such as "I built this road" or "We personally donated that facility" are used in the context of programs that are fully funded by the state. At this point, public policy, which is a systematic product of the state, seems to be downgraded to a kind of gift or personal generosity. This is in direct contradiction with the principle ofimpersonality of the state—that the state must work impartially and systematically, not based on preferences or the personal image of whoever is in office.