[Comment] Marcus Aurelius and the art of communication
PETER SAIN LEY BERRY
31.10.2008 @ 09:27 CET
EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - The Roman Emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius spent a great deal of time in establishing a set of sound principles for living amongst one's fellow human beings. His desire was to establish codes of conduct governing personal behaviour that were efficacious and humane and so to put the business of personal leadership within government on a steady footing.
Stop talking about communicating better and just do it, commissioner. (Photo: European Community, 2006)
Although he lived and wrote almost 2,000 years ago, most of his conclusions are still valid today. The problems of leadership, of government, of conduct and communications do not change much from one generation to another. Even though we no longer generally make sauces from the fermented entrails of Mediterranean fish, Marcus Aurelius would recognise many of the challenges and conundrums that so perplex European leaders today.
One of his maxims, as true now as when he wrote it, was to the effect that leaders should stop talking about what a good person should be, and just be that person.
For it is not really necessary, and indeed may even be undesirable, to boast about the principles that underlie your actions. If you believe it is right to act in a certain way then you should just get on with it. Those around you will then reach their own judgment about the correctness or efficiency of those actions.
This piece of Marcus Aurelius' wisdom came to mind when I read the EU's recent political declaration on communications. For those that haven't seen it, this concerns how the principal European institutions - the Council, commission and parliament - will henceforward co-operate with one another when attempting to inform the public of their intentions and actions. Hitherto there has been duplication and even competition between their respective information services.
The declaration also talks grandly of how citizens "should be provided in language they understand with adequate and objective information on the EU's issues and policies and that takes into account their expectations." Margot Wallstom, the EU communications commissioner, devoted an article to promoting it in these very pages last week.
Whether the declaration is itself written in "language they understand", I shall leave to others to judge. Personally, I feel it reminiscent of something drafted and re-drafted in committee and designed to suggest more than it actually delivers. Nevertheless, there will be many to whom the declaration will be welcome news. "And about time too!" we can imagine them exclaiming. Indeed who could possibly object to a commitment to such inter-institutional co-operation and the better provision of information?
Well, Marcus Aurelius for a start. And as he is unfortunately no longer with us, I must argue his case for him. He is, after all, a European citizen, even if a dead one.
The danger with political declarations (he might argue) is that they can so easily become a substitute for action and a defence against those who may continue to complain in this case that inter-institutional co-operation is less than it should be, or even that its communications remain opaque.
It is as if the mere act of agreeing on a declaration or target is thought sufficient to bring about the action needed. Though, to be fair, this is a trap into which all departments of government easily and repeatedly fall.
Marcus Aurelius would rather, I think, have preferred the Council, commission and parliament to have refrained from grand declarations and instead just got on with the job of co-operating and communicating better. Ordinary folk could then judge, a year or two later, whether or not they were actually succeeding. How agreeable would it be to write in 2010, "what we can say about 2009 is that EU communications appeared to improve markedly, with inter-institutional co-operation being much in evidence."
Which, despite the present declaration, is not the case at the moment. For instance, the most important recent development in EU communications has been last month's launch of the European Parliament's Europarl TV service on the internet. I wrote at the time that I thought this had missed a trick by focusing on the parliament alone rather than on "Europe" as a whole, this being the unitary way that most ordinary folks see the matter.
Here then was a first-class opportunity to demonstrate the principle of inter-institutional co-operation. An announcement that Europarl TV would now become Euro-Union TV and report on all three institutions would have counted for far more than bland rhetoric about "giving everyone access to fair and diverse information ... enabling them to exercise their rights to express their views and to participate actively in the public debate about EU issues."
Especially as such rhetoric rings horribly hollow. Its phrasing is peculiarly uni-directional. "Everyone deserves access to information," it says, but there is nothing to indicate that the views that may be expressed as a result (and indeed which the citizens are expressing now) will be heeded.
Indeed, the more I look at the message, the more I seem to be seeing something that begs for the "re-education" opportunities only available in more authoritarian states. If only we could properly inform the people, then they would understand and not ask embarrassing questions about the parliament's travelling circus or the febrile nature of commissioners' declarations of political interest, appears to be the underlying thought.
Indeed, if Ms Wallstrom observes that the negative result in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was the result of "emotional arguments and disinformation", then the "re-education" philosophy of this communication initiative becomes even clearer.
I am not denying the considerable amount of disinformation in the Irish campaign, though whether it was uniquely on one side is a moot point. Clearly also many people still do not understand why 27 European states should have decided to form a partnership with common rules to tackle policies that are global or continental in scale.
Such things do need explaining. But the declaration with its alliterative "plans, priorities and partnership" will not do this. The priorities - 2009 European elections, climate change and the Berlin Wall anniversary - have been chosen by the institutions. Has anyone asked the citizens what their communication priorities are? Indeed, should the agenda not be open if it is a dialogue we are trying to establish?
Or as Marcus Aurelius might have put it, stop talking about what the good communicator should do and just communicate well.
The author is an independent commentator on European affairs.
