The Government’s new communication strategy: Transparency or information control?
Political communication in the Dominican Republic has evolved toward a high-production model, where transparency is presented under a carefully designed scheme. This Monday marked the launch of “LA Agenda Semanal” (The Weekly Agenda), a format presented by the Presidency as an open window for citizens to observe the supervision of projects, the review of indicators, and decision-making by President Luis Abinader.
However, the implementation of this new space has raised various questions due to its nature: it is a televised executive meeting on closed-circuit where in-person access for the press has been restricted. In this scheme, the president assumes the role of host, questioning his own officials, while the media must send their concerns in advance or formulate them during the broadcast.
The paradigm shift: From interaction to production
This format replaces “LA Semanal con la Prensa”, which for more than two years allowed for direct interaction between the president and journalists. The transition to “LA Agenda Semanal” marks a fundamental difference in the philosophy of government communication:
- Before: The Government responded to direct questions from the press on various topics of national interest.
- Now: The Government manages its own questions, controlling the flow of information and the context of the answers.
A journalist is not there to help the official look good; they are there to question what is not clear, such as budgets, contracts, or unfinished projects. Accountability begins precisely when someone asks about what those in power would prefer not to explain.
The difference between informing and being accountable
Although the Government assures that it will maintain dissemination through multiple platforms —radio, television, and social media—, it is necessary to distinguish between government information and accountability. The former consists of the power explaining what it wishes to communicate, while the latter requires external scrutiny that is not limited to a pre-established script.
The challenge for the current administration lies in the fact that, by placing a distance between public management and those who have the professional task of questioning it, there is a risk of turning accountability into a piece of audiovisual production. True transparency is not just showing results, but allowing power to be examined by independent voices that are not part of the government structure.
Ultimately, trust in a government is strengthened when it is capable of withstanding questions it does not control. As has been well noted, when a power is confident in its results and the capability of its officials, it rarely needs to be the one to decide who holds the microphone.
