Therefore, the authorities cannot afford to divide opponents, journalists, public figures, or cultural people into “right” and “wrong,” “ours” and “theirs.” A label is not an argument. Instead of answering the question, the origin, views, alleged intentions, or affiliation to one camp or another of the questioner are evaluated.
Read more A storm hit Western Lithuania: heavy rain, lightning, and hail
The consequence of such behavior is not only a deteriorated political language. People begin to distrust institutions because they see that rules are applied differently. The mistakes of their own are explained by circumstances, while those of opponents – by their moral qualities. Doubts of their own are called discussion, while questions from others – an attack. Over time, a dangerous attitude prevails that what matters is not what was said or done, but who said or did it.
The authorities always face the temptation to confuse loyalty with legitimacy. However, a democratic mandate is not an indulgence. It grants the right to govern for a limited time but also obliges to represent those who voted differently. True political culture is revealed not when the authorities talk to those who agree with them, but when they calmly and reasonably respond to their critics.
A separate problem is the public speaking of unelected political trust officials, especially advisors. Their direct duty is to advise the political leader, help him assess the consequences of decisions, and warn about mistakes in time. However, they often begin to express political assessments on their own behalf, explaining that they have the same right as any citizen. Nevertheless, the voice of an advisor in office will always be associated with his political leader in society. The position provides not only a platform but also responsibility.
If an advisor truly speaks only on his own behalf and his position does not coincide with the leader’s stance, the leader must clearly and unequivocally distance himself from such statements. Remaining silent and later explaining that the advisor did not speak on the leader’s behalf is politically irresponsible and improper. The leader is not responsible for every thought of the advisor, but he is responsible for his chosen team and the political direction it publicly creates.
What would I suggest changing?
First of all, all political forces must agree on a uniform standard for public evaluation. Every statement must be assessed based on its content, facts, and possible consequences, not on the speaker’s party affiliation. If certain behavior is condemned in the opposition, it cannot be justified once in power. This simple principle should be applied when considering laws, assessing conflicts of interest, and commenting on journalistic investigations.
Second, those in positions of power should clearly distinguish fact, assumption, and political assessment. A public statement must begin with verified information, and doubt must be identified as doubt, not as a verdict. If there are not enough facts, the most responsible words are “we do not know yet” and “we need to find out.” This is not weakness. It is respect for the truth and the people.
Third, it is necessary to create a genuinely functioning internal criticism system within government institutions. The duty of advisors, experts, and civil servants should not be to confirm the leader’s opinion but to timely point out its weak spots. Before making decisions important to society, legal and impact analyses must be conducted, independent institutions heard, and their arguments published. An unfavorable expert opinion cannot be dismissed simply because it is inconvenient for the political plan.
Read more South Korea: US cancels joint marine exercises due to war with Iran
Fourth, government representatives should not react impulsively to criticism. Before publicly commenting on a journalistic investigation, an institutional decision, or accusations made, they must first verify the facts, assess legal arguments, and address the essence of the question. A hasty, emotional statement from a position of power can be perceived as pressure on the critic, the media, or the institution. Therefore, the official response must be businesslike, without personal epithets, and based on verified information.
Fifth, media criticism cannot be equated with hostile informational activity just because the authorities dislike the published facts. Living next to an aggressive state, we must accurately distinguish disinformation from democratic control. Otherwise, we weaken society’s resilience ourselves and give propaganda its strongest weapon – people’s distrust of their own journalists and institutions.
Sixth, in the heat of criticism, the rules governing the activities of independent institutions cannot be hastily changed. Every such project should be accompanied by a public justification of the problem, an assessment by legal experts, an analysis of the impact on the institution’s independence, and sufficient time for the public to familiarize themselves. The law cannot become a response to an inconvenient show, investigation, decision, or personal conflict. Rules must be created for the long term, not for one political term or one inconvenient case.
Seventh, a public culture of error correction must emerge. An official, politician, or institution that has published inaccurate information or unjustly assessed a person should not delete the record and pretend nothing happened but clearly acknowledge the mistake, correct it, and apologize. The ability to apologize does not diminish authority. It is diminished by a stubborn unwillingness to admit one’s mistake.
Culture is the soul of the state and the nation, so political language is also part of cultural policy. It depends on it whether respect and trust will increase in society or only new trenches. Today, when the state’s resilience is tested not only by military but also informational means, a responsible word becomes part of national security.
Power is not the right to proclaim the final truth louder than others. Power is first and foremost the duty to limit oneself, listen, and apply equal principles to all. Only in this way can trust in politics be restored and a state be built where disagreement does not turn into hostility, and criticism is seen not as a threat but as an opportunity to avoid mistakes.
Read more Power outage due to storm: lawyer explained whether compensation is due for it
