Communication is now one of the most decisive forces governing the state in Bangladesh. Policymaking, administrative control, and conventional political management remain as necessary as ever, but they are no longer enough on their own. Today, a rumour can spread faster than an official instruction. A Facebook post can trigger market anxiety before any formal announcement appears. State silence is often read not as deliberation, but as weakness, secrecy, or incompetence. In this reality, communication is not an accessory to governance. It is part of governance itself, and increasingly a condition for public order, trust, and national stability.
Government communication has traditionally been treated as a defensive form of public relations, something activated only after criticism grows or a crisis erupts. That approach is now costly. By the time the government begins speaking, speculation has already spread, public opinion has hardened, and trust has started to erode. This is why Bangladesh urgently needs to rebuild the state’s communication architecture through an integrated and professional system built on three connected pillars: strategic communication, risk communication, and crisis communication.
Strategic communication explains the long-term direction of the state and the logic behind major choices. Risk communication prepares the public in advance for possible disruptions or painful adjustments. Crisis communication delivers fast, clear, and credible guidance when danger is already unfolding. These three are linked, but each has a separate purpose. Without all three working together, it becomes difficult to govern sensitive sectors such as energy, migration, and macroeconomic management.
The current situation in the energy sector makes this especially clear. For instance, fuel pricing in Bangladesh impacts transport costs, industrial production, household survival, market prices, as well as political sentiment. Yet, price adjustments have often appeared sudden, unprepared, and imposed from above. Sometimes, secrecy has been used as if it could calm the situation. In reality, secrecy often creates fear, encourages hoarding and market manipulation, and gives people the impression that the government is not managing the problem but rather reacting under pressure. Economic decisions quickly become political decisions when people do not understand why they are being made.
The deeper problem is not simply the price increase itself. It is the absence of credible explanations before the decision arrives. If market-adjusted pricing is going to shape Bangladesh’s energy future, the public must be prepared well in advance. People need context, not slogans. If explained consistently and factually, even difficult decisions can become more understandable and acceptable.
This is where risk communication matters. The relevant ministries should not wait until a price revision is announced, but should instead provide regular, forecast-based explanations in simple language. If Brent crude rises, citizens should not learn about its implications only from foreign media or partisan political commentary. They should hear it directly from their own government, through clear language, visuals, and public briefings. The message should not be framed as mere suffering. It should explain how the state is trying to protect supply, reduce long-term vulnerability, and manage risks before they become shocks. Effective communication does not exist to make people feel good. It exists to help them understand reality.
Transparency becomes even more important when a crisis actually unfolds. In energy management, fear of shortage can itself intensify the scarcity. If the public suspects that fuel is running out, panic behaviour can accelerate the crisis. In such cases, real-time information becomes more powerful than generic assurances. If people know how much fuel is available, where supplies are stored, and how distribution is moving, panic can be eased. Opacity deepens uncertainty. Transparency reduces it.
The migration and remittance sector presents another major test. In a world marked by regional conflicts, labour market uncertainty, and rumours flow rapidly, migrant communication must be redesigned around trust, preparedness, and visible protection. If expatriate workers are truly national assets, then the state must communicate with them not only in the language of administration but also in the language of responsibility. Migrants should know that the government has contingency plans, diplomatic channels, emergency support systems, and safety mechanisms ready before a crisis begins. Confidence cannot be improvised after a conflict erupts.
In migration crises, the information vacuum is especially dangerous because it is quickly filled by brokers, rumour mongers, and opportunists. That is why communication here must be direct, digital, and continuous. Dedicated 24-hour response platforms, location-based SMS alerts, verified safe zone updates, and simple guidance for emergency assistance would do more than share information. They would make the state visibly present in migrants’ lives. That visibility matters, as it can reduce fear, prevent deception, and lower the chances of irregular migration, which affects not only families but also the wider economy.
Macroeconomic stability also depends heavily on communication. Economic language is often technical, but its social and political effects are immediate. Markets do not run only on numbers. They run on expectations, trust, and perceived credibility. If the government says one thing to international lenders and another to the domestic public, credibility quickly weakens. If policy messages are late, vague, or contradictory, traders turn defensive, speculators grow active, and ordinary people become anxious.
What is needed is a disciplined culture of economic communication. The Ministry of Finance and Bangladesh Bank should publicise timely briefings and communicate quality public data, and forward guidance regularly, predictably, and clearly to stabilise expectations even when the news is difficult. Honesty is essential. It is better to acknowledge reserve pressure early than to let outside actors reveal the damage later. Trust is not lost only because the news is bad. It is often lost because people feel the truth was hidden. Similarly, when it comes to rumours in the banking sector, silence is rarely neutral. It is often interpreted as confirmation. In such situations, visible leadership, credible data, and plain explanation must move together. That is why strategic, risk, and crisis communication must be treated as one governing framework.
Bangladesh must move from reactive messaging. It needs inter-ministerial coordination that can detect panic, rumours, and confusion early. It needs a culture of timely disclosure, honest interpretation, and empathetic language, especially where policy decisions affect kitchens, savings, migration routes, and everyday survival. In an age of unstable information flows, the public sphere never remains empty for long. If the state leaves it vacant, rumours, fear, and propaganda will take over. And once they do, governing becomes increasingly difficult. Bangladesh’s future stability will depend not only on what the state does, but also on how honestly, prudently, and responsibly it speaks to its people.
Dr S.M. Rezwan-Ul-Alam is associate professor and chair of the Media, Communication, and Journalism Department at North South University.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
