Transparency is the infrastructure of democracy. Lessons learned from the role of spokesperson in the last 5 years
Daniel Voda
Former spokesperson of the Government of the Republic of Moldova
At the end of my term as Government spokesperson, I looked back carefully at the years spent in public communication – both at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and at the Government – and at how important it is that the state, political actors, civil society and the press to work, each in its role, to ensure that citizens are properly informed.
Public communication is not an add-on to governance. It is part of it. A democracy only works when people understand what state institutions do, why politicians – whether from the government or the opposition – make certain decisions and what effects those decisions have on their lives. And in order to reach people, institutions and politicians need to be understood by journalists. The press is neither a friend, not an enemy. It is the bridge in communication with people.
The role of the spokesperson: between pressure, clarity and responsibility
The work of a spokesperson, a press officer or a communicator means explanations, transparency and accountability. It means speaking clearly even when the subject is complicated and answering even when the question is uncomfortable. Those working in public communication know well a simple truth: wrong information can create panic or distrust; accurate information, delivered on time, can prevent a crisis.
My experience in diplomacy and at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs taught me to weigh my words. My experience at the Government taught me speed, working under pressure and managing public expectations. But I have never communicated things that were not true, and I have always done so out of respect for the press and the people who were recipients of the message of public interest. Transparency does not mean saying everything – it means not hiding what is relevant to people.
The press – the mirror, the filter and, sometimes, the necessary brake
Journalists have their own priorities, and this is part of the natural process of a democracy: exclusivity, emotion transmitted through the headline, investigation. An official has other priorities: stability, control, predictability. The role of effective public communication between these two logics lies. If this ‘conflict’ is framed negatively, it will generate frustration for both parties. Positive framing and understanding of this phenomenon builds trust. Therefore, transparency is mandatory, not optional.
Sometimes, public communication can be slowed down not by a lack of information, but by delays in decision-making that make it impossible to deliver a prompt message, as well as by objective factors: additional analysis and verification of contextual data. Communication cannot fix a bad decision, but it can save a good decision that is poorly explained. Responsible governance starts with understanding this process at the level of all decision-makers – from the president of the country, the prime minister, and the speaker of Parliament, to ministers, MPs, heads of institutions, mayors or local councillors.
Another simple example from experience: people react more calmly when they understand the reason behind a decision, not just its outcome.
In a democracy, the state must accept and respect the role of the press as a critical and incisive actor, with a different point of view shaped over time by its audiences. And the press must understand that, without accurate and complete information, even a well-intentioned code of ethics cannot serve the public interest.
A practice that would help both parties is predictability: clear announcements, simple messages, communication calendar, availability for questions, updated contact list. When the journalist knows what to expect, tensions disappear. Understanding the formats is equally important: television relies on images and time pressure, radio needs voice, while newspapers or online media need clear and specific texts.
Modern communication: a mix of channels, not dependence on a single medium
Media fragmentation has changed the way the public consumes information. Television remains relevant for large audiences. Radio and the print media create context, discussions, and debates. Online platforms provide speed and access, but cannot replace depth. Modern communication requires a mix of channels tailored to each audience. People do not get informed in the same way, do not have the same habits and do not follow the same platforms. Therefore, government communication must be present everywhere, but coherent and consistent.
A useful addition for practitioners:
– Establish the unique message before distributing it on different channels. The same idea can be transmitted in different ways, but it should never contradict each other;
– Avoid jargon and explain technical terms in a plain language;
– Start from simple logic: if your family understands the message, then hundreds of thousands of other families in Moldova will understand it too.
Fighting disinformation through explanations
Overshadowed by informational noise, even the best public decision can be reinterpreted. Disinformation works through emotion, but the state must respond with facts and explanations. Through trained speakers who convey credibility and are accepted by diverse audiences. In my experience, in a crisis, the lack of a credible speaker is more dangerous than the crisis itself.
A fast and accountable response is essential. Do not rely on lengthy analytical presentations of a phenomenon made a week later if, at the right time, the responsible persons failed to act or shifted the responsibility to someone else. A fake combated after 24 hours is no longer debunked, but amplified. Use charts, examples, and comparisons—people understand visually, not just theoretically.
In the era of artificial intelligence and deep fakes, public communication must also be attractive, because fakes no longer come from the shadows, generated by people, but from technology.
One of the most effective practices at the Government, developed with the support of European and American partners, was capacity-building of the institution with a dedicated team that includes designers, photographers and videographers to create content in formats tailored to various existing platforms.
General lessons for those who work with the public
From these years, several principles remain that can guide any communication or journalism professional:
– Simplicity is a sign of respect for the public;
– Predictability builds trust;
– Openness reduces crises;
– Clarity reduces misinterpretation;
– Language is a tool to ensure we are understood everywhere in our own country; including Russian, where it is spoken locally;
– Honesty preserves credibility.
Public communication is not just an image exercise, but a responsibility. People have the right to know. And those of us in institutions have the obligation to provide accurate, complete, and timely information, in accordance with the law—or even earlier. Essentially, we share a common mission – informing citizens. Communication by authorities is not the work of one person, politician, or institution – is the work of an entire administration that must understand the value of transparency.
On the way to the European Union, we commit European standards in the way we communicate. Transparency is the democratic infrastructure of this process. I remain convinced that a European Moldova begins with a state that calls things by their proper names, develops critical thinking, and with a press that asks questions and receives answers. And ultimately, that is the essence of the public interest and the essence of our belonging to Europe.
The article was written within the project “Resilient Media, Informed Voters: Safeguarding Moldova’s Elections from Disinformation”, funded by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Moldova. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the donor.
