Internationally Recognised Principles to Be Followed by a Head of State When Addressing the Public

Sep 15, 2026 at 05:00 AM

|

Lanka Leader

Introduction

In a democratic State, an address to the public by the Head of State should not be regarded merely as a political speech. An official statement , speech or an address to the nation by a Head of State performs several important democratic functions, including explaining government policies, providing accurate information to citizens, guiding the public during periods of crisis, promoting social cohesion, and maintaining public confidence in State institutions.

There is no single universally binding international code that prescribes precisely how every Head of State must address the public. Nevertheless, internationally recognised principles of public communication, open government, risk communication, democratic accountability, and responsible governance have been developed and promoted by international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Taken together, these principles provide a useful normative framework for assessing whether communication by a Head of State is consistent with the standards expected of responsible democratic leadership.

1. Truthfulness and Accuracy

One of the most fundamental requirements of responsible public communication is truthfulness.

Statements made by a Head of State concerning economic conditions, public expenditure, employment, crime, national security, public health, government performance, or other matters of public importance should be factually accurate and capable of verification.

Misleading the public through inaccurate statistics, selective presentation of facts, exaggeration, or unsupported assertions may seriously undermine public confidence in both the political leadership and State institutions.

The WHO communication framework particularly emphasises technical accuracy as an essential component of credible and trusted communication.

Accordingly, significant factual claims contained in an official address should, wherever possible, have a verifiable factual and evidential basis.

2. Transparency

Truthfulness alone is not sufficient. Government decisions and the reasons underlying them should also be explained to the public in a transparent manner.

A Head of State should therefore communicate not merely the decision that has been taken but, where appropriate, the circumstances, evidence, objectives, limitations, and considerations underlying that decision.

Transparency becomes particularly important when the available information is incomplete or uncertain.

In such circumstances, responsible communication may require the leadership to state clearly:

“These are the facts presently known to us, while these matters remain uncertain or require further verification.”

Acknowledging uncertainty is not necessarily a sign of weakness. On the contrary, openness concerning what is known and what remains unknown may strengthen public confidence.

3. Accountability

Accountability is a fundamental principle of democratic governance.

A Head of State addressing the nation should therefore recognise that public communication is also a means through which political authority is made accountable to citizens.

An official address or any speech aiming general public  should not merely publicise governmental achievements while concealing failures or difficulties. 

Where mistakes have occurred, responsible leadership requires an explanation of what happened, what corrective measures are being taken, and how similar failures will be prevented in the future.

The OECD identifies transparency, integrity, accountability, and stakeholder participation as important principles associated with open government and effective public communication.

Public communication should therefore function not merely as a mechanism for promoting government policy but also as a means of demonstrating governmental responsibility to the public.

4. Separation of Government Communication from Partisan Political Propaganda

This is a particularly important principle.

A Head of State may simultaneously be a member or leader of a political party. Nevertheless, there is an important conceptual distinction between addressing the public in an official capacity as Head of State and addressing supporters in the capacity of a political party leader.

The OECD distinguishes public communication from political communication. Public communication is directed towards serving the public interest by providing information, listening to citizens, and responding to their concerns. Political communication, by contrast, may involve political parties, elections, individual political personalities, and partisan political debate.

Accordingly, official governmental communication should not be transformed into partisan propaganda.

Likewise, State resources, official communication platforms, and public institutions should not ordinarily be used merely to promote the personal political image of an office-holder or the electoral interests of a particular political party.

The distinction between “speaking as the State” and “speaking as a political party” is therefore an important feature of democratic public communication.

5. Respect, Inclusiveness and Social Cohesion

A Head of State occupies an office that represents the State as a whole and not merely those citizens who voted for the governing party.

Accordingly, public addresses should recognise the dignity of all citizens, including political opponents, critics,  and those who disagree with the government.

Language that humiliates, dehumanises, intimidates, or unnecessarily divides groups of citizens may damage democratic culture and social cohesion.

A responsible national address should therefore avoid an excessive “us versus them” approach.

Instead, the language of the Head of State should, particularly during periods of national difficulty, promote common citizenship, mutual respect, social cohesion, and confidence in democratic institutions.

6. Clarity and Plain Language

Government communication should be understandable to ordinary citizens and should not be accessible only to specialists.

Technical, economic, legal, scientific, or administrative terminology should therefore be explained in language that a non-specialist audience can reasonably understand.

The WHO's communication principles emphasise understandable communication and the use of plain language.

Accordingly, unnecessary jargon, excessively complex sentences, unexplained statistics, and technical expressions should be avoided wherever they impede public understanding.

The most important information should also be communicated clearly and prominently.

7. Timeliness

Accurate information may lose much of its practical value if it is communicated too late.

This principle is especially important during national emergencies, natural disasters, public-health crises, economic instability, security incidents, or other situations in which citizens must make decisions based on information supplied by the State.

The WHO communication framework emphasises communicating early and communicating at the appropriate time.

Accordingly, a Head of State should not unnecessarily delay information that is necessary for public safety, public understanding, or informed decision-making.

8. Empathy and Sensitivity

A Head of State communicates not merely about statistics and policies but about matters that directly affect people's lives.

Public communication should therefore demonstrate an understanding of the difficulties, anxieties, losses, and hardships experienced by citizens.

For example, during an economic crisis, there is an important difference between simply saying:

“The people must make sacrifices.”

and saying:

“We recognise the difficulties that families are experiencing as a result of the increased cost of living, and the Government is taking the following measures to reduce that burden.”

The second form of communication recognises the human consequences of public policy.

The WHO's approach to credible and trusted communication emphasises not only competence and honesty but also commitment and caring.

Empathy should therefore be regarded as an important component of responsible national leadership.

9. Listening to Citizens and Two-Way Communication

Modern democratic public communication should not be regarded as a purely one-directional process.

The traditional model may be represented as:

Government → People

A more democratic model is:

Government ⇄ People

In other words, government communication should involve not only speaking to citizens but also listening to them.

Public criticism, questions, concerns, and alternative opinions should not automatically be treated as hostility towards the State. They may instead constitute valuable democratic feedback.

The OECD approach to public communication emphasises the importance of stakeholder participation and the capacity of public institutions to listen and respond to citizens.

Therefore, effective communication by national leadership should contribute to dialogue rather than merely transmit instructions from government to the governed.

10. Accessibility and Inclusiveness

An official national message should be capable of reaching the different communities that constitute the State.

Consideration should therefore be given to the persons with disabilities, people living in areas with limited technological access, and other groups who may otherwise be excluded from official communication.

The WHO identifies six broad principles of effective communication: communication should be accessible, actionable, credible and trusted, relevant, timely, and understandable.

Accessibility is therefore not merely a technical issue. It is closely connected with equality, inclusion, and the ability of citizens to participate meaningfully in democratic governance.

A Ten-Point Test for Evaluating an Address by a Head of State

On the basis of the above international principles, an official address by a Head of State may be evaluated by asking the following questions:

1. Are the factual statements accurate and verifiable?

2. Has relevant information been presented with sufficient transparency?

3. Does the address demonstrate accountability for governmental actions?

4. Is it genuinely governmental/public communication, or has it become partisan political propaganda?

5. Are political opponents, critics, and other groups addressed with dignity and respect?

6. Does the language promote social cohesion, or does it unnecessarily divide citizens?

7. Is the message clear and understandable to ordinary members of the public?

8. Does the speaker demonstrate empathy towards people affected by the policies or circumstances being discussed?

9. Is there recognition of the importance of listening and responding to citizens?

10. Is the information provided in a timely, accessible, and inclusive manner?

Conclusion

An address to the nation by a Head of State or any public address is an important instrument of democratic governance.

 Its purpose should extend beyond promoting the political image of the individual office-holder or the governing political party.

Responsible public communication should provide citizens with accurate and timely information, explain governmental decisions, demonstrate accountability, acknowledge uncertainty where necessary, promote social cohesion, respect opposing views, and strengthen public confidence in democratic institutions.

The OECD regards public communication as an important instrument for promoting open government and strengthening democracy, with particular emphasis on transparency, integrity, accountability, and stakeholder participation.

Accordingly, the essence of internationally recognised principles of responsible communication by a Head of State may be expressed as:

Truth + Accuracy + Transparency + Accountability + Impartiality + Respect + Inclusiveness + Clarity + Timeliness + Empathy + Listening.

The underlying democratic philosophy may be summarised in the following proposition:

“A Head of State should address the people not merely to exercise authority over them, but to inform them, account to them, listen to them, and communicate with them in pursuit of the common good.”

Principal References

1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2021), OECD Report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing.

2. World Health Organization (WHO), WHO Strategic Communications Framework for Effective Communications.

Dr. Raja Goonaratne- 

Senior Lecturer,

Attorney-at-Law ,

Department of Legal  Studies  

The Open University of Sri Lanka