LIMITS TO MINISTERS’ ‘POLITICAL COMMUNICATION’ The whole problem of different hats and legal scope may perhaps seem a bit like legal quibbling. It is not, however. Because here as well, jurisprudence is just using a technical formula for a basic societal principle. In this instance, it is the principle that the exercise of authority must be legitimate and proceed with respect for existing legislation and good administrative behaviour. Also when ministers are involved, and the issue has become political. A CONCEPT APT TO CONFUSE ‘Political communication’ is today a commonly used expression. And in informal talks in parliamentary circles I sometimes encounter the viewpoint that ministers’ room to manoeuvre in this field should not be too narrowly confined. This is an entirely natural viewpoint. Neither the Ombudsman nor others should of course make ministers’ navigation in the waters of communication more difficult than supervision of existing legal principles etc. necessitates. But it is important that words do not acquire their own magic. Political communication is not a legal concept, and it may sometimes confuse more than it clarifies. A minister has different functions with different legal scope. This scope is fundamental to our administration. And it does not shift, no matter what expressions you use. We at the Ombudsman institution will always do our best to understand and respect the reality that ministers and ministries live in. On the other hand, the Eritrea case and the advertisement case may hopefully be used by the Civil Service as an illustration of some fundamental principles which provide the framework for the ministers’ working day. Also their ‘political communication’. 55