There’s a question that kept buzzing in my head throughout my postgraduate studies:
Why are politicians so good at avoiding blame—and why do we let them?
That single question led me down a deep, intellectual rabbit hole. It took me from ancient Greece to modern-day communication theory. From Socratic dialogue to bureaucratic spin. From philosophy to power. Eventually, it became the foundation for my master’s thesis: The Instrumentalization of Blame Avoidance Strategies in Strategic Political Communication: A Systematic Problematization Analysis.
But this wasn’t just an academic exercise. It was a quest to understand the way political narratives shape public truth—and how those in power reframe accountability to serve their own survival.
🔍 What’s the Real Problem?
It started with language. Specifically, the Greek word προβληματοποίηση—problematization.
We hear the word “problem,” and we think of something to fix. But problematization isn’t about solving a problem. It’s about understanding how something becomes a problem in the first place.
Who framed it this way?
What’s left unsaid?
Who benefits from this framing?
These questions became my guiding lights.
🧭 Learning from the Ancients (and the Rebels)
I didn’t want to examine blame through just one lens. So I turned to the wisdom of thinkers who shook the world.
- Socrates, with his sharp questioning and humble ignorance, showed me how dialogue reveals false certainty and provokes deeper thought.
- Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educator who taught literacy as a revolutionary act, taught me that consciousness isn’t given—it’s awakened. He showed how systems educate us into silence unless we dare to ask the hard questions.
- Michel Foucault showed me that what we call “truth” is often a product of power, shaped by discourse, history, and institutional interests. His tools—archaeology, genealogy, problematization—became keys to decode political narratives.
Together, these voices helped me form a methodological foundation:
We must challenge how problems are defined, not just how they are “solved.”
⚙️ Blame Avoidance Is a System, Not an Accident
Then came Christopher Hood, whose book The Blame Game exposed the tactical genius behind political responsibility-dodging. He mapped three main strategies:
- Presentational: Spin it. Apologize just enough. Say the right things at the right time.
- Agency: Share the blame. Use bureaucracy to diffuse responsibility.
- Policy: Design systems where accountability is so vague, no one knows who to blame.
These aren’t coincidences. They’re survival mechanisms in political communication.
By combining Hood’s framework with the problematization methodologies of Alvesson & Sandberg, I created a powerful lens through which to examine modern political rhetoric. I wasn’t just looking at what politicians were saying—I was asking why they chose to frame problems that way.
🧪 The Experiment: Applying the Framework
I applied these methodologies to real political texts. And the findings were revealing.
Politicians often frame issues in ways that:
- Emphasize complexity to deflect responsibility
- Use technical or “budgetary” language to narrow public understanding
- Cast blame on previous governments or external forces to shield themselves
- Mask ideological decisions as neutral facts
In other words, they problematize strategically—not to enlighten the public, but to protect their own legitimacy.
And the academic world is not immune either. Through my analysis, I found that even researchers often play the same game—preferring “safe” gaps in literature over radical rethinking of assumptions.
🧨 Why This Matters
If we don’t critically examine how problems are defined, we fall for illusions. We accept the terms of the debate without realizing that the debate itself was rigged from the start.
Problematization gives us a way out. It lets us ask:
- Who says this is a crisis?
- Why now?
- What are we not being told?
- What alternatives are being excluded?
When we ask these questions, we begin to reclaim our power as citizens, as scholars, as thinkers.
🛠️ My Takeaway
My thesis wasn’t just about blame. It was about reclaiming the power of questioning.
It taught me that every policy, every press release, every government announcement is part of a story. And if we want to understand the truth, we need to unpack the frame before we believe the picture.
We need to problematize—constantly, consciously, courageously.
And maybe, just maybe, that’s how we begin to demand more honest politics, more transparent communication, and more accountability where it matters most.
Books used for the analysis:
 |
 |
 |