By Kenrick Quashie
Too often in politics, our position on public affairs is determined by our partisan political interests. Everything our party leaders do must be good, while everything the other side does must be bad. Before we consider the facts or decide whether something is wrong, we determine whose political fortunes might suffer if we say so.
There must be things we do not compromise on, even where we offer grace. We can appreciate the difficulties of governing, recognise that people make mistakes, and allow a reasonable opportunity for correction. But grace cannot and does not require us to abandon our judgment. Understanding why something happened does not oblige us to defend it.
The real test of our principles comes when they become inconvenient to our own side. It is easy to demand transparency from a government we oppose. It takes more conviction, however, to demand it from a government we helped elect. Yet, if transparency, accountability, and fairness mattered before an election, they must continue to matter afterwards. A change in government cannot mean a change in the meaning of those words.
Those of us who supported political change have a particular responsibility here. If we argued that the country deserved better, then we must be prepared to insist on better. We cannot spend years condemning a practice, then discover its usefulness when our preferred party takes office. The very reasons we gave people for supporting change should guide how we assess the government that comes after it.
The same responsibility rests with those whose party is no longer in office. Demanding accountability from a new government is entirely legitimate, but there must also be some honest reflection on what we accepted and defended when our own party governed. If we dismissed concerns, excused misconduct, or attacked those who asked reasonable questions, we should acknowledge that. Accountability cannot become important to us only when we lose an election.
That inconsistency, though, does not make a valid concern any less deserving of an answer. A government must still account for its conduct, even when the questions come from people who failed to demand the same when they governed. But those now raising their voices must also decide whether they are committed to better governance or simply want their party back in office. If the same conduct would become acceptable again under their preferred leadership, then their position serves a party far more than it serves this country.
That does not mean, however, that every misstep deserves outrage or every allegation should be accepted as fact. Fairness requires that we establish what happened, listen to explanations, and distinguish between an honest error and deliberate wrongdoing. People must have an opportunity to respond. But once the facts are clear, our judgment cannot depend on which party stands to benefit.
Too often, even a reasonable concern is met with a reminder of what the previous government did. That history may be relevant, particularly where problems were inherited. However, it cannot settle every question about decisions being made today. Saying that someone else behaved worse does very little for the citizen who is asking whether the present conduct is acceptable.
There is also something deeply troubling about treating every expression of disappointment as betrayal. A supporter can want a government to succeed and still question its decisions. Indeed, someone who speaks honestly may be doing more for that government than those who assure its leaders that everything is fine. Leaders need to know when public confidence is weakening, when a decision appears unfair, and when their explanations are failing to satisfy the people.
When supporters make every decision defensible, they help create an environment in which correction becomes less likely. Concerns are dismissed as hostility, criticism is attributed to political enemies, and meanwhile those with legitimate grievances struggle to be heard. This eventually leads to a leadership that begins to mistake the approval of its most committed defenders for the judgment of the wider country.
I think George Orwell captured the danger of surrendering independent judgment in his novel Animal Farm perfectly. The animals are taught the slogan, “Four legs good, two legs bad.” Later, as the pigs adopt the behaviour they once condemned, the chant becomes, “Four legs good, two legs better.” Here we see that the principle changes to accommodate those in power, and the repetition continues.
We should see this as a warning and take it seriously. We must guard against becoming so accustomed to defending our leaders that we barely notice when our own standards have been reversed. If the conduct we once condemned is now acceptable, we should be able to explain what changed beyond the identity of the person responsible.
Mind you, political loyalty has its place. Parties need committed people who will organise, defend sound policies, and remain steady through difficult periods. But that commitment must leave room for conscience. No leader is entitled to our agreement on every issue, and no party should require us to say what we do not believe.
We can offer patience without offering excuses. We can acknowledge progress while challenging wrongdoing. We can give a government a fair opportunity to deliver while remaining clear about the standards by which it must be judged. These are reasonable expectations of citizens who care about the country and want their government to succeed.
If I were to deliver a message as we celebrate 47 years of independence, it would be that patriotism must ask more of us than loyalty to a political party. We do a disservice to ourselves and to our beloved St. Vincent and the Grenadines when we defend conduct simply because those responsible belong on our side. Building a stronger nation requires that we apply the same standards to those we support as we do to those we oppose. SVG must matter more than our desire to protect a leader, defend a party, or win a political argument.
May we, therefore, retain the courage to say, even to those we support, that something is wrong and needs to be corrected. May we offer grace where it is deserved, insist on accountability where it is required, and never become so invested in protecting a political party that we lose sight of the people it was elected to serve. May we never get to a point where we opt to defend the indefensible.
Happy Independence, SVG!
The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].