The language of politics, bureaucracy, and people

Recently, New Zealand announced, and then adopted, a law to ensure official documents are written in “plain English” - that is, language which is easily understandable by “everyday”people, meaning people who do not have particular expertise (particularly legal, political, or specialist technical). 

I agree with this aim, but, given that is has been sought before and we still have the problem, I consider it needs a proper consideration. 

As a first point, sometimes official language requires a precision that isn't found in everyday speech. As an example of that, in everyday speech we might refer to having “a knee problem”, but, in order to get effective medical help, we may need more accurate terminology - such as referring to a specific ligament that is torn and may need surgical repair, as opposed to a more general deterioration that requires a knee replacement. 

In politics, the limits of a programme - who gets assistance, and in what form, and for how long, etc - may need precise language. 

However, in explaining or being precise, bureaucrats must avoid being patronising by “dumbing down” language - citizen juries show that “everyday” people are capable of understanding complex issues if they are presented respectfully, patiently, and using appropriate language. 

I suspect resistance to plain language comes from issues such as: 

• addiction to outdated wording; 
• resentment at having to change; 
• arrogant refusal to accept that expertise in one area does not automatically make one an expert in another - and thus, for instance, having an engineering degree does not make one a master of social, political or communication matters (I am thinking of some past colleagues there).
  

Resisting plain or clear language is, in my experience, rarely an attempt at a malicious subterfuge: the problem is far more likely to be a simple “being human” problem - which does not reduce the need to address it, so that governance can be as it should - of, for, and by us.