Problems Arise from Flagship Programs and the President's Circle of Power

Meanwhile, Shoeb Mohammad and Andrew Crane in Theorizing Reputational Spillovers (2015) develop a framework explaining how reputational impacts can spread.

The two key factors they identify are focality, which refers to how much an event draws attention, and perceived relatedness, which concerns how the public perceives the connection between the crisis-stricken entity and others.

Although both studies predominantly address organizations and companies, their conceptual frameworks can apply to government reputation interrelations.

In Prabowo's context, this relationship is significant because priority programs, state institutions, officials, and the President's leadership exist in a political ecosystem that the public associates with one another.

When governance issues arise within flagship programs, the repercussions may extend to public perceptions of the President's leadership.

When similar questions emerge in other state institutions, the public may begin linking these events to overall governance oversight quality and integrity.

Here, reputation becomes interdependent. The reputation of one institution does not stand alone when it is part of the same government.

This phenomenon also relates to reputational interdependence, as discussed by Barnett and Hoffman (2008) in Beyond Corporate Reputation: Managing Reputational Interdependence.

The core idea is simple: the actions and reputation of one entity can affect another that is connected to it.

For the government, the implications are significant. The President must be aware not only of his personal reputation but also of the reputations of programs, ministries, agencies, and officials under his leadership.

Consequently, a sector crisis can potentially escalate into an overall government reputation crisis.

Why Defensive Communication Is Not Enough?

In crises, governments are often tempted to prioritize defensive communication strategies.

Assertions that the President was unaware of an issue, that the case is an individual responsibility, or that legal processes are ongoing can indeed be part of the response.

However, this approach is insufficient unless accompanied by corrective actions.

William L. Benoit, a communication scholar at the University of Missouri, through Image Repair Theory published in Public Relations Review (1997), outlines several strategies for restoring reputation during a crisis.

These strategies include denial, diminishment of responsibility, impact reduction, corrective action, and apologies.

Benoit’s framework helps clarify communication choices available to the government. However, in a governmental context, image restoration strategies must be coupled with substantive accountability.

The government cannot simply assert that an issue is an individual mistake. The public also wants to know why oversight systems failed, how deviations occurred, who bears institutional responsibility, and what changes will be made.

The concern is that if the government continues to use communication to defend its leader, while structural problems remain unaddressed, communication may exacerbate public distrust.

This thinking aligns with Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) developed by W. Timothy Coombs of Eastern Illinois University.

In the article Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis (2007) in Corporate Reputation Review, Coombs explains that crisis communication strategies must consider public perceptions of the organization's accountability for the crisis.

The greater the responsibility the public associates with an organization, the more urgent the need for corrective actions and accountability.

For a government, this means that the President cannot merely distance himself from issues arising under his leadership. There is a political responsibility to rectify the systems that allowed these issues to occur.

Here lies the difference between Political Public Relations and mere political image management. Substantive political PR builds relationships and legitimacy through actions, dialogue, and accountability.

Overemphasis on image management poses the risk of merely striving to maintain a positive perception.

Public Trust Is Not Built on Positive Narratives

Trust in government is not born merely from the government's ability to deliver persuasive messages. It is also determined by the public's experiences of how government exercises its authority.

Research by Maja Svenbro and Misse Wester of Lund University, Examining Legitimacy in Government Agencies’ Crisis Communication (2023), published in the International Journal of Strategic Communication, illustrates the critical relationship between government crisis communication, legitimacy, and public acceptance.

Simultaneously, Olga Eisele’s study How Do Executives Communicate About Crises? A Framework for Comparative Analysis develops a framework for assessing executive crisis communication across four dimensions: information accessibility, capacity to alleviate public concerns, accommodation of public interests, and consistency of communication among crisis managers.