British hip-hop artist Stormzy stirred up a cyclone at the Brits, the UK’s version of the American Grammy’s, last week.
He called out prime minister Theresa May for the government’s slow response to the tragic Grenfell Tower high-rise fire, an inferno that took 71 lives back in June 2017. But after winning the awards for album of the year and best male solo artist, Stormzy attacked the prime minister in rap.
“Yo Theresa May, where’s that money for Grenfell? What, you thought we just forgot about Grenfell? You’re criminals, and you’ve got the cheek to call us savages?” The response of the PM’s spokesman fell flat: “If there are concerns being raised we would look at those.”
That didn’t satisfy either Stormzy – or many watching the Brits. People want more. Maybe even “I’m sorry.” And here are five reasons why governments should say that more often:
1. The public is mad as hell. If there’s any lesson that comes out of the Brexit vote – and the election of Donald Trump – and the October Czech presidential election – and the rise of populism in Austria, Hungary, and Poland, it’s this: the public is mad as hell. They don’t want to take it anymore. If governments don’t want their people to get madder, they need to connect with their people. Saying “I’m sorry” a bit more often would help.
2. The public doesn’t think anyone is listening. Too often people hear spin or see tweetstorms instead of a government that reaches out to them. A simple “I’m sorry” might say, “We’re listening.” Especially when the government’s first steps clearly aren’t “good enough”, as May admitted in the days after Grenfell.
3. Lots of citizens think that too many government officials are in business for themselves. Trump’s “drain the swamp” pledge resonated because too much of government seems to voters like a closed corporation, impenetrable from the outside and run for the benefit of those on the inside. Saying “I’m sorry” might prove a much better way for government leaders to connect with citizens than Bill Clinton’s now-hackneyed, “I feel your pain.”
4. Government officials are looking for someone to lead. The chief administrative officer in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found herself demoted. Her offense: refusing to pay too much money for a new chair in the secretary’s office, during an expensive redecorating project. The official, Helen Foster, said she faced retribution for discovering a $10 million shortfall in the department’s budget – and a ruined reputation. She wants her job back – and an apology. Inside the government, career leaders are looking for signals about whether they dare to lead. Sometimes, “I’m sorry” can tell them what behavior is valued most. Or at least tolerated, in the interest of following the law.
5. No one ever seems to be in charge of anything. In an increasingly complex and interdependent world, it’s truly the case that leaders can’t really run anything, at least on their own. At Grenfell, investigators found that the fire started accidentally in a defective Hotpoint fridge. It spread up the side of the building, though aluminum cladding and insulation chosen because it was cheaper. Firefighters struggled with low water pressure and with radio problems that made it hard to communicate. The tragedy wasn’t just one failure but a series of problems that rippled throughout the entire system.The people want accountability, someone to reach out to and yell out. But no single person can fix problems, big or small. Ironically, many would say that the local football club, Queens Park Rangers, has done more for the local community in the aftermath of the fire than government itself. Deep down, the public knows the world is complex, but they want someone who gets it – and who’s willing to step in to accept responsibility for making sure that big problems don’t happen again. Saying “I’m sorry” can, simply and directly, say, “that’s awful – and I’ll make sure it gets fixed.”
Big governments aren’t good at apologising. One analyst found just five times that the US has apologised for its official actions (shielding a Nazi war criminal, interning Japanese civilians during World War II, overthrowing the Queen of Hawaii, experimenting on black men to learn the long-term effects of syphilis – and for slavery.) None were easy, and none obliterated the mistakes that had been made. But saying “I’m sorry” made it easier to tell those hurt by the mistakes that the government understood the hurt – and to make sure it wasn’t repeated.
Lawyers often raise objections to apologies for fear it would open the doors to lawsuits. Politicians never want to admit mistakes because they worry it would make it easier for their challengers. But saying “I’m sorry” doesn’t necessarily mean “it’s my fault” – and in the days of social media and 24-hour news, it’s not as if not saying somehow provides a shield from legal or political attacks. Government would be a lot better off if they said it a bit more often.
What is legitimacy to you? Where do you see legitimacy working well? How governments work with citizens to build legitimacy is a big question for CPI.
Find out how to get involved in our Finding Legitimacy project
Picture credit: Christian Bertrand / Shutterstock.com
- Finding legitimacy – CPI is starting a global conversation for better outcomes. Nadine Smith introduces a new research programme about legitimacy from the Centre for Public Impact.
- Competence, fairness, and caring – the three keys to government legitimacy. UCL’s Amanda Greene pinpoints competence, fairness, and caring as key factors in helping governments secure their legitimacy.
- Introducing the Finding Legitimacy regional champions. We meet the regional champions of CPI’s #FindingLegitimacy project
- Why you cannot fix legitimacy but you can mend it. How can governments reconnect with their citizens? Nadine Smith explains why there is is no catch-all fix but instead a continuous journey of improvement
- If no news is good news, what is fake news? With fake news increasingly part of the public discourse, Nadine Smith examines how governments can start to strengthen its own credibility rating.
- Public impact in a post-truth world. Governments have struggled for years to understand that people’s perceptions of life are very often their reality, says Adrian Brown, who suggests that “post-truth” can simply mean “truth” from a different vantage point
- Why we shouldn’t panic over post-truth. Nadine Smith explains why policymakers should understand how to adapt messages so that people feel connected to them.