By Guevara Leacock
On A View from the Outside this week, we turn our attention to COMMUNICATION, and specifically to the recent criticism of the communication strategy of the Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Our position is a simple one: any credible critique of a government’s communication strategy must place communication within the broader framework of governance, must acknowledge the realities of administrative transition, and must engage seriously with policy outcomes.
In recent weeks, there has been a growing chorus of criticism, circulating across social media, print, and radio, suggesting that the government has drifted into confusion and lacks direction because of poor communication. These criticisms present themselves as candid interventions and necessary warnings. Their tone is urgent, at times even admonishing. But urgency is not the same as accuracy, and candour is not a substitute for balance. To be frank is not necessarily to be fair, and to be loud is not necessarily to be right.
Our view is that much of the criticism currently being directed at the government’s communication strategy is not a measured assessment of a new and young administration finding its footing. Rather, it is a narrative built on selective perception, premature judgment, and a limited appreciation of how governments actually function, especially in their earliest months.
The central allegation is that the administration suffers from such serious communication failures that its credibility is being undermined. Yet that claim rests largely on anecdotal impressions: talk of “blunders,” “mixed messages,” and “misinformation,” without the support of sustained evidence or careful analysis. In the sphere of public engagement and governance, that is a weak evidential foundation. A government’s communicative performance cannot be judged merely by tone, style, or visibility. It must be assessed against institutional output, policy coherence, and the realities of administrative transition.
And the truth is that the Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines has been communicating with the people. There have been press conferences by ministers, the Friday Report, public notices issued through the Agency for Public Information, and ministerial statements on significant national and international observances, including, for example, International Women’s Day. These are not imaginary acts of communication. They are real, public, and ongoing. Indeed, some of these practices were either less consistent or less visible under the previous administration, despite its self-presentation as a progressive government.
The criticism also misunderstands the temporal dimension of governance. This administration is only about five months into office. To characterise that short period as evidence of systemic failure is, in our view on a view from the outside, a serious error.
The transition from opposition to government is not simply a matter of changing faces. It involves bureaucratic alignment, policy recalibration, institutional learning, and the reordering of priorities across the machinery of the state. What some are calling “unpreparedness” may in fact be the ordinary friction that accompanies the assumption of governmental responsibility. That is not a sign of collapse. It is part of the learning curve of being in government.
It is worth remembering, too, that Vincentians lived for twenty-five years under a style of government in which public communication was heavily centralised and dominated by a single political voice. Against that background, it is perhaps unsurprising that some may now struggle to recognise the quieter, more distributed, and more democratic rhythms of a new and refreshing administration. Democracy does not always look like constant command. Sometimes it looks like process, deliberation, coordination, and adjustment.
Another criticism we hear is that there is “no clear sense of direction” from the government. That is a serious allegation, but once again it is more often asserted than demonstrated.
Direction in governance is not reducible to daily headlines or constant public spectacle. It is often embedded in legislative planning, administrative priorities, and policy pipelines that are often not immediately visible to the public. In fact, the government’s policy direction was clearly outlined in the Speech from the Throne delivered by His Excellency the Governor-General, Sir Stanley John, at the ceremonial opening of Parliament in February 2026. That speech set out the legislative and policy agenda of the administration. It is publicly available, including on the social media pages of the Agency for Public Information. That, too, is communication. That, too, is the government speaking to the nation.
What some critics appear to be demanding is not merely communication, but a particular style of communication: constant visibility, immediate explanation, and permanent rhetorical performance. But that is a superficial model of governance, one that values optics over substance. There is always a danger in confusing good governance with theatrics, as though leadership must always be seen in order to be effective, rather than judged by whether it is in fact being effective. Government is not theatre. It is work.
And there are signs of that work. Roads are being repaired. Public officers dismissed under the vaccine mandate have returned to work. New ambulances have been acquired. Economic confidence, at least in public sentiment, appears to be strengthening. Whether one agrees with every decision or not, these are not signs of drift. They are signs of good governance and administration.
We also hear comparisons with the previous administration, often framed as disappointment that “too little has changed.” But continuity in governance is not, by itself, proof of failure.
Responsible government often requires continuity, stability, and incrementalism. A state cannot be run on permanent rupture. Dramatic and immediate transformation may satisfy the appetite of an impatient public, but it can also damage institutional soundness and create long-term instability. Even a commanding electoral mandate, such as the 14-to-1 victory secured by the New Democratic Party in November 2025, does not mean that every area of national life can or should be transformed overnight. Change takes time. Serious government takes time.
Some of the criticism has also focused on the public visibility of Prime Minister Dr Godwin Friday, dismissing his appearances at schools, sporting events, and community functions as light, symbolic, or feel-good engagements.
But that criticism reveals a very narrow understanding of political leadership. In a modern democracy, particularly in a small state such as St. Vincent and the Grenadines, civic presence matters. Visibility in community spaces is not trivial. It is one of the ways in which legitimacy is built, reinforced, and humanised. Leadership is not expressed only through formal statements, Cabinet meetings, and technical briefings. It is also expressed through proximity to the people and we see evidence of Dr Friday doing just that.
The suggestion that the government should appoint a professional communications strategist is perhaps the most concrete and least controversial of the criticisms being made. On that point, there is room for agreement. Most governments benefit from more coordinated communication. Indeed, the government itself has already indicated that it intends to appoint a communications specialist. But we must be careful not to exaggerate what communication can do. Communication is not a substitute for policy. It is not a replacement for delivery. And it is not the primary measure of whether a government is governing well.
There is also a deeper risk here. Communication can easily become a substitute for substance, a way of managing perception rather than confronting reality. Vincentians know very well what that looks like. We have seen administrations that spoke endlessly, dominated the airwaves, and projected confidence, while beneath the surface the structural integrity of the country was being steadily eroded.
There is only so much that talking can achieve. Communication matters, yes, but it cannot by itself build roads, repair institutions, manage public finances, or restore trust in government.
What is strikingly absent from much of the criticism is sustained engagement with policy substance. We hear little serious discussion of legislative initiatives, administrative reforms, or economic measures. References to public policy are often brief and passing. But a government’s effectiveness cannot be assessed on communicative grounds alone. It must be judged in relation to what it does, what it builds, what it reforms, and what it sets in motion. To focus almost entirely on messaging is to present only a partial, and potentially misleading, picture of governance.
Now, let us be clear. Vincentians do have legitimate reasons to want more information. Many are anxious to hear about the gravity of the alleged mismanagement of the economy over the past twenty-five years. Many are waiting for the promised forensic audit. Many want details, not merely assurances. That desire is understandable. It is valid. But forensic audits are, by their nature, forensic. They require time, scrutiny, and care. They are deep examinations of the books and records of the state, carried out while government must still continue to govern. Patience in that context is not weakness. It is real.
So yes, some of the questions being raised about communication are legitimate. Public perception matters. Coordination matters. Clarity matters. But the current critique, as it is often being presented, is analytically thin and premature. It too often substitutes assertion for evidence, perception for analysis, and rhetoric for balance.
A more credible critique would do more. It would situate communication within the broader framework of governance. It would acknowledge the realities of administrative transition. It would examine policy outcomes. It would ask not only how a government speaks, but what it is doing, what constraints it faces, and what institutional changes are underway.
Until that kind of critique is offered, the repeated call for the government to “wake up” may say less about the administration itself and more about the limitations of those making the accusation.
Until next week, this is Guevara Leacock with A View from the Outside for Saturday, the 10th of April 2026.
Have a pleasant day, a wonderful and incident-free weekend, and a positive week ahead.
Guevara Leacock is a barrister at law of Lincoln’s Inn in England and an attorney at law in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. He has a keen interest in history and politics and is a social commentator.
The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].
