ABSTRACT
This study investigated how state institutions in Ghana communicate with their publics, using the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) as a reference point.
In a survey, the researcher sampled 150 respondents, comprising 100 respondents from the Ministries, Departments, and Agencies, with the other 50 made up of persons who had filed complaints with the Commission at its head office in Accra.
Underpinned by the media richness and systems theories, the study revealed that CHRAJ had been communicating with its external publics using mainly the traditional media, with radio being the most dominant and preferred medium. The study also found that the Commission had feedback mechanisms (such as letters, visits, and telephone) in place to allow its external publics, especially complainants, to keep abreast of happenings within the Commission. The results also gave an indication that the Commission had been practising an open system, as the various communication channels allowed the external publics to access information without much difficulty. The Commission was, therefore, rated highly by its external publics.
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
Communication is a very vital ingredient for creating and sustaining relationships between institutions and their publics. It is, therefore, not surprising that some scholars have rightly described it as “the nervous system” or the “life-blood” of any human social action (Sambe, 2009). Communication is deemed excellent when it assures the achievement of organisational effectiveness, by helping to match organisational goals with the expectations of its strategic constituents. Without communication structures and processes which enable the two-way exchange of information between institutions and their publics, it is difficult to imagine how institutions can be responsive to public needs and expectations (Grunig, 1992).
Haider, Mcloughlin & Scott (2011) note that a key aspect of governance is how citizens, leaders, and public institutions relate to each other in order to make change happen. Importantly, two-way communication allows an institution’s publics to monitor its activities, to enter into dialogue with the institution on issues that matter to them, and to influence policy outcomes. This also encourages the development of trust between institutions and their publics, and forms the foundation of legitimacy for institutions over the long-term. Haider et al (2011) also observe that on a practical level, communication can be seen as essential to the development of an institution’s capability, accountability and responsiveness in the following ways:
- Capability: Consultation and dialogue between institutions and their publics can, in
principle, improve public understanding of, and support for, policies which may be initiated by such institutions and encourage public ownership of reform. Without the support of the public, institutions often lack the capability to get things done.
- Accountability: Access to information and transparency are in theory vital for enabling citizens to monitor and hold institutions to account for their actions and inactions. There is significant evidence that transparency can reduce opportunities for corruption.
- Responsiveness: A well-informed public strengthens the demand for institutions to be accountable. For example, debate through the media, public information campaigns, and social accountability mechanisms have all worked to encourage institutions to be responsive to demands of the public and resulted in better public service delivery.
