Government Communication in Times of Crisis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Government Communication in Times of Crisis An Analysis of Egyptian Government Actors’ Responses to Terrorism and Protests (2011-2019) Yasmine Ahmed Hassan Hassanain Student ID: 12906190 Master’s Thesis Graduate School of Communication Master’s program Communication Science Erasmus Mundus Journalism Supervisor: dr. mr. J.H.P. (Joost) van Spanje Date of submission: 29/05/2020 Word count: 7499 Abstract The necessity of effective communication in the aftermath of a crisis has been established in literature and in practice. However, governmental responses to nationwide crises are still greatly neglected in this field of research, calling for better attention to how such critical events are communicated to the public. Accordingly, this study aims to extend existing crisis communication literature in two ways. Firstly, it seeks to extrapolate corporate-rooted theories, which dominate the field, into the arena of government communication. Secondly, it adds a contextual perspective by tapping into the nuances of contemporary Egypt. A quantitative content analysis of 1,390 governmental statements, in response to a selection of terrorism and protests events between 2011 and 2019, was conducted. Findings reveal that the Egyptian government’s discourse included two components of strategic crisis communication: information-giving strategies that emphasize public well-being, and reputation-management strategies that focus on offsetting negative perceptions and affects about the government. Moreover, the government’s strategic approach was found to deviate from best practice advice in theory, especially regarding the selection of reputation-repair strategies. Findings are discussed in terms of their theoretical and practical implications for crisis communication researchers and government communicators. Keywords: Crisis Communication; Crisis Response Strategies; Egypt; Crisis in Egypt; Protests, Terrorism Word count: 202 2 Introduction Terrorist attacks. Earthquakes. Epidemics. Demonstrations… Governments often encounter undesired and unexpected ‘crises’, where public safety and/or their own political survival are at high risk. At such critical moments, everyone looks to the leaders who are expected to deal with the immediate threats and are pressured to contain their citizens’ dissatisfaction (Boin, McConnell, & ‘t Hart, 2008; Boin, ‘t Hart, Stern, & Sundelius, 2005; Liu & Levenshus, 2012). Accordingly, political crisis communication research constitutes a rapidly growing field that aims to understand and inform governments’ crisis response efforts (Auer, 2016). In that light, this study zooms in on two types of crisis that impose significant pressure on governments worldwide, seeking to answer the following research question: What crisis communication strategies do governmental actors employ in response to domestic terrorist attacks and anti-regime protests, and to what extent does the type of crisis inform the selection of strategies? In particular, the study examines how Egyptian government actors responded to eight terror attacks and two nationwide protests between 2011 and 2019. A quantitative content analysis of governmental statements was conducted, applying two mainstream paradigms in crisis response literature: The Model of Crisis Communication Content (Sturges, 1994) and The Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) (Coombs, 2007, 2010). This paper seeks to advance crisis communication literature in two ways. Firstly, political and governmental crises still constitute a “blind spot” (Auer, 2016, p.118) in this research field that has almost exclusively focused on the private sector. Most established theories are corporate- centered (Liu & Horsley, 2007; Olsson, 2014); and few studies examined their applicability in governmental contexts (Adkins, 2010; Chua & Pang, 2012; Clements, 2016; Jin, Pang, & 3 Cameron, 2006; Peijuan, Ting, & Pang, 2009; Zhang & Benoit, 2004). The present study follows in the latter’s footsteps by applying two well-established corporate crisis communication theories to nationwide crises. In doing so, it sheds light on some unique attributes of governments’ strategic goals, and offers a replicable operationalization of relevant crisis response strategies in the language of public officials. Secondly, tapping into the nuances of the Egyptian context, this research adds to a growing interest to contextualize crisis communication theories outside the liberal democratic settings where they are originated (Kim, 2014; Kimotho & Nyarang’o, 2019; Pang & Hu, 2018; Wu, Huang, & Kao, 2016). For instance, Wu et al. (2016, p.65) called for revising Western theories to account for China’s “hierarchical authoritarianism and relation- centered values”. In similar vein, this study addresses the extent to which crisis response paradigms hold up in yet another setting, where values of democracy and accountability manifest very differently than in the West. Few studies examined crisis communication in Egypt (Alharbi, 2012; Anagondahalli, 2013; Koa, 2018), of which none addressed government-level discourse. More practically, crisis communication research provides useful tools to crisis managers and the lay public (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2017). Crisis response theories seek to establish systematic frameworks for the most “appropriate strategic communication approaches and techniques” (Jin et al., p.83). Furthermore, unveiling the strategic aspects of crisis communication is believed to contribute to the public’s awareness and autonomy as political consumers (Koa, 2018; Spiller & Bergner, 2011). Not only is political education essential for modern democracies to survive (Gutmann & Ben-Porath, 2014), but it also plays a key role in democratic transitions as in the Egyptian context (Liu, 2015). Accordingly, the findings of this study could offer sensible insights for government communicators and their audience of citizens. 4 Conceptual Framework Political Crisis The definition of a ‘crisis’ has been subject to a long debate in academic literature. Hermann (1963, p.64) identified it as an event that “(1) threatens high-priority values of the organization, (2) presents a restricted amount of time in which a response can be made, and (3) is unexpected or unanticipated by the organization”. Auer (2016) later offered a more specified conceptualization of a ‘political crisis’, arguing that the political dimension had remained “ambiguous” (p.119) due to the focus on the private sector. She defines ‘political crisis’ as: “A situation in which a political entity perceives a higher than normal threat to one or more of its core values and finite time for response triggered by the behavioral change of another entity and that is characterized by disruptive interaction between the opposing entities” (Auer, 2016, p.123). Adopting Auer’s definition, ‘terrorist attacks’ and ‘protests’ are addressed in this study as two types of political crises. Both impose high threats to the government by obstructing national security and stability, require quick response, and involve disruptive actions by protestors or terrorists. According to Lerbinger (1997, 2012)’s seven-categories crisis typology, ‘terrorism’ exemplifies a crisis of ‘malevolence’ when “opponents or miscreant individuals” (Lerbinger, 2012, p.185) use criminal actions to express hostility or seek gains from a company or country. Meanwhile, ‘protests’ are an example of ‘confrontational crisis’ where discontented people fight a company or government to satisfy certain demands. Terrorism has attracted growing interest in crisis communication research following 9/11 attacks (An & Cheng, 2010; Boin et al., 2005; Boin et al., 2008; Canel & Sanders, 2010; 5 Clements, 2016; Kimotho & Nyarang’o, 2019). National protests are also identified in literature as ‘crisis situations’ (Bostan-Ünsal, 2013; Kavanaugh, Yang, Sheetz, Li, & Fox, 2011). Yet, few studies addressed protests from a communication perspective (Alharbi, 2012; Anagondahalli, 2013). Crisis Communicators According to Auer (2016), the political ‘entity’ or ‘actor’ involved in crisis communication can be an individual (politician, diplomat), a political organization (government, military), or the whole state/territory (referring to public diplomacy). These categories reflect a micro, meso and macro level of reference to crisis communicators. Most empirical studies have focused on individual politicians, including Presidents (Alharbi, 2012; Anagondahalli, 2013; Benoit, 1982, 1999, 2006; Benoit & Henson, 2009; Benoit, Gullifor, & Panici, 1991) and international leaders (Edwards, 2008). Fewer studies addressed government discourse, often underlining public diplomacy in crises where international reputation is jeopardized (Chua & Pang, 2012; Zhang & Benoit, 2004). In this research, the political entity is conceptualized on the meso-level, addressing the ‘government’ as one encompassing organization managing domestic crises (Jin et al., 2006). ‘Government communication’ is defined by Canel and Sanders (2012, p.86) as a type of communication carried out by “executive politicians and officials in public institutions in the service of a political rationale”. To identify these officials, Walter (2017)’s operationalization of ‘government actors’ in EU countries was adopted. It covers national executives (e.g., heads of states, ministers), legislative actors, political administrations (e.g., civil servants, diplomats) and judiciary actors. Equally, the crisis communicators addressed in this study include the incumbent 6 president, cabinet