Communication, Reputation and Governance in Africa

Status alone is no longer enough to establish an institution’s legitimacy. In the past, authority followed naturally from office; today, it must be earned and demonstrated. Through my career in highly strategic sectors and my current responsibilities at Société de Patrimoine, I have observed this major structural transition: legitimacy no longer flows simply from a decree or a title; it is validated each day by the actions undertaken, the results achieved and the quality of the relationship built with citizens.

In the past, the standing of an institution such as Société de Patrimoine, its affiliation with the state or the prestige of its logo was enough to command respect. That model, based on decreed authority, is now obsolete. Driven by greater demands for accountability, transparency and immediate access to information, we have moved from communication through announcement to communication through proof.

Citizens are no longer satisfied with promises: they want to understand, see and verify. To meet that expectation, institutional legitimacy must rest on tangible indicators:

• The rigour and quality of completed infrastructure projects
• The real, visible and measurable impact of our actions on the ground, directly benefiting communities
• The institution’s capacity to listen, explain its decisions and act transparently

Institutional authority is therefore no longer a permanent asset but dynamic capital. It is not inherited; it must be managed and earned. To preserve that capital, a modern organisation must continually validate its promise through concrete action and maintain a genuinely close relationship with users, who now sit at the centre of public action. This is precisely our strategic communication mission: to transform the institution’s status, day after day, into lasting and shared trust.

My method rests on a fundamental principle: aligning communication with governance so that it evolves from a simple dissemination tool into a strategic function integrated into decision-making.

When faced with a reputation deficit, my first instinct is to conduct a rigorous diagnosis. This determines whether the crisis stems from a perception problem — the discourse — or from a structural failure — governance.

To do this, I rely on straightforward questions and indicators:

• Message diagnosis: Is the message disconnected from people’s lived experience? If conditions on the ground are positive but poorly perceived, the problem lies in the discourse. It can then be corrected through education, clarity and transparency.
• Governance diagnosis: Does citizens’ experience directly contradict the institution’s commitments? If operational key performance indicators (KPIs) are not being met, the gap points to governance.

To measure this gap, I rely on factual data, including feedback from the ground, complaints, safety conditions, project delays and the overall satisfaction rate.

When senior management demands a quick “communication stunt” under urgent pressure, my role as a strategic partner is to insist on restraint. Communicating in haste merely to create noise is pointless, even dangerous. My responsibility is to safeguard and protect the institution.

Trying to conceal a fundamental problem exposes the organisation to a devastating boomerang effect that permanently damages trust and intensifies criticism.

There is also the financial cost: should resources be invested in a superficial campaign without addressing the root cause?

Ultimately, I always prioritise managerial responsibility. Like a medical diagnosis, the logical approach is to identify the pathology, design an effective action plan to treat the problem, and only then communicate the reality of the solutions delivered. This rational approach, grounded in real facts and co-constructed with management, is what builds lasting trust.

This issue lies at the heart of the challenges Gabonese institutions currently face: reconciling the time required for structural reforms with our fellow citizens’ immediate and pressing expectations.

Since the transition began in 2023, marked by a firm determination to restore our institutions, our approach has had to change profoundly. In this context of rebuilding, it is essential that communication no longer precede concrete action. Anticipating results through premature announcements risks opening a major credibility gap between the administration and the public. To guarantee the sincerity of this transformation and break decisively with superficial postures, public communication must embrace a culture of truth and verifiable fact.

Institutional communication is therefore closely aligned with the working methods and pragmatic approach of the President of the Republic, Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema. He has initiated a series of major transformations that directly affect daily life in Gabon: rehabilitating and modernising infrastructure, roads, schools and hospitals, while placing the reduction of unemployment at the heart of national priorities.

Our role as public communicators is undergoing a paradigm shift. We are no longer constructing narratives; we are keeping a transparent logbook of these transformations. Trust can no longer be decreed; it is rebuilt step by step through evidence of concrete achievements.

To anchor this momentum over time, our strategy rests on three managerial pillars:

• Place action within a clear trajectory: Present each reform as a dynamic process. The institution must educate by clarifying its starting point, its objectives and the intermediate stages required to achieve them.
• Highlight visible and measurable results: Make immediate progress tangible, whether through simplifying a service for users, delivering local infrastructure or publishing a financial management report.
• Practise communication grounded in humility and accountability: Adopt a responsible stance by reporting periodically and honestly on both progress and challenges.

The digital transformation of the Gabonese administration perfectly illustrates this transition through proof, with concrete milestones that are already operational:

• The introduction of the Personal Identification Number (NIP), the foundation of digital sovereignty and secure civil registration
• The rollout of the new secure driving licence incorporating a QR code
• The inauguration of Gabon’s first data centre, safeguarding the sovereignty of our institutional data

These structural initiatives are no longer theoretical promises but visible markers of an irreversible modernisation of our public services.

This distinction reminds me of a fundamental truth: although we share the same challenges across the continent, our contexts remain profoundly distinctive. While there is an undeniable commonality in the structural challenges to be addressed, imposing standardised methods on ecosystems as varied as Gabon, Rwanda and Ghana is an intellectual trap for any strategist. The work of a public communicator in Africa constantly moves between shared reference points and deeply local realities.

Across the continent, trust is the foundation of public action. Everywhere, citizens demand tangible proof, genuine proximity and complete transparency. Yet believing in a single recipe or standardised operating model would be reductive. Good public communication cannot tolerate copy-and-paste solutions. It demands a tailored approach shaped by people’s daily lives.

Operational priorities vary drastically from one country to another. For example, issues of access to drinking water or energy — which lie at the heart of a public communicator’s concerns in Gabon — do not arise in the same terms for a Rwandan counterpart, where access to these basic services has already improved considerably. Our countries share neither the same history nor the same level of infrastructural maturity. Thus, even if we share a strong oral tradition in dialogue with our audiences, the nature of the messages and the levers for action differ. Institutional communication finds its proper effectiveness and full credibility by understanding the cultural nuances, social urgencies and political fabric of the country in which it operates.

Must we choose between local and international credibility? Certainly not! Treating them as separate dimensions is a major strategic error. For a modern institution, operational performance and managerial ethics speak equally to every audience. Whether our fellow citizens, financial partners or international organisations are concerned, the evaluation criteria converge: if a project scrupulously meets its specifications, delivery deadlines and transparency requirements, it naturally earns everyone’s approval.

A reputation crisis arises only when an attempt is made to artificially “dress up” a botched project. Credibility is not decreed through an image campaign; it is earned through rigorous execution. The real challenge for the public communicator lies in reconciling compliance requirements at both levels. To build a strong reputation, one must connect international standards with realities on the ground by applying the principle of traceability in public action through concrete examples. This is precisely where our function finds its full meaning: making reforms understandable and verifiable to all.

In concrete terms, our role is to translate abstract indicators, audits or international governance rankings into tangible gains in people’s daily lives. In this process, authenticity becomes our universal language. An institution that rigorously documents its projects, sets precise timetables and openly acknowledges its operational challenges demonstrates managerial maturity to investors. At the same time, that same intellectual honesty strengthens trust among citizens, who can see that the administration refuses rhetorical camouflage. An institution is fully credible abroad only when it is exemplary at home.

This is where the communicator’s real work is revealed: the moment of contradiction. I have learned that one must position oneself as a genuine business partner to senior leadership in order to be understood, heard and accepted.

It is not easy, as every situation brings its own complexities. Our main challenge is to shift communication from a simple execution or approval service into a strategic partner function. Safeguarding the institution by ensuring strict alignment between discourse and reality: that is the responsibility of communication.

However, leaving behind the role of executor and becoming a strategic adviser requires building a deep bond of trust. It is a demanding, long-term process. Playing the role of “critical partner” without being perceived as disloyal requires turning communication into a governance security asset.

To persuade without filters and defuse power struggles, the communicator must let the facts speak instead of relying on personal impressions.

Like a chief financial officer or an accountant relying on financial statements, we must support our point of view with objective evidence, field indicators and quantified reputational risk alerts. This approach takes us beyond “I heard that…” and grounds us in facts: “This campaign cost this amount; here are its actual results, and they are not helping us meet our commitments to the public.”

If being called “disloyal” means having the courage to report that the ship is taking on water, then we must own it and stand firm. Loyalty does not consist in blindly reassuring a leader in their certainties; doing so would be professional misconduct. Our duty is to be truthful.

Nevertheless, to avoid taking the position of a lecturer, the communicator must work in a process of co-construction with the manager. A rigorous diagnosis is not enough: one must immediately take action and propose concrete recovery solutions.

A leader’s trust is earned when they understand that the communicator’s candour is not an act of defiance but a security requirement.

I can tell you, without fear of being wrong, that artificial intelligence does not produce perfection; it is only an aid.

Behind every text, analysis and algorithm, a human being is still at the controls and sets the direction.

In the face of doubt, an institution’s credibility will never rest on technological artifice, but on three inseparable pillars: verifiable data, acknowledged error and committed human speech.

I repeat emphatically: rhetorical packaging serves only to conceal the truth, and that is absolutely not a communicator’s role. Our duty is to be truthful and present the facts as they are. The disorganisation or governance failures of others cannot be justified or concealed by me, as a communicator, through smooth, beautiful and aesthetically pleasing communication. To do so would distort my function and betray my strategic responsibility.

Yes, the transformation is total. Tomorrow, a successful communications department will not be the one that speaks best, but the one that enables the institution to be best understood. Our role is no longer to embellish public decisions; our mission is to translate them.

Take a highly topical example in Gabon: the eviction and demolition operations carried out in several neighbourhoods. People are affected, sometimes rehoused and compensated.

This is precisely where the institutional communicator must play their full role. The aim is not to engage in propaganda, but to explain clearly why these operations are being carried out in one specific neighbourhood and not another, and to translate the ultimate development objective of this infrastructure.

We must go directly to those affected by these measures and explain the foundations and realities of the project in fair, human and truthful terms.

To achieve this, we must make three major breaks:

• Move from storytelling to documentation: Leave marketing narratives behind and rely on open data, facts and clear maps.
• Acknowledge dysfunctions: Have the courage to explain why things are being done today and why they could not be done before. Honesty about past constraints strengthens the credibility of present actions.
• Move from mere spokespersonship to mediation: No longer communicate unilaterally from the institution to the public, but commit to listening and two-way dialogue.

The communicator definitively leaves behind the role of a simple builder of narratives to become a mediator of trust between the institution and society. For a communications professional who refuses to dress up disorganisation or conceal the truth, this evolution is salutary. It restores our profession’s true nobility and public value.