The right to criticism is one of the most powerful tools in the hands of citizens. That is why freedom of expression stands as a cornerstone of democratic governance. But who evaluates the citizens themselves – and who holds them to account?
Everyone acknowledges that there are problems in the way institutions function. Citizens believe corruption is widespread, and no one can reasonably argue that this is merely a subjective perception. Although some exploit public sentiment for communication or political gain, citizens’ anger and frustration have become a central political factor ahead of elections. Polls already show that thousands of voters intend to punish traditional parties at the ballot box.
All this is well known. We repeat it constantly – sometimes we exaggerate it, sometimes we present it objectively. What we seem to overlook, or fail to take seriously enough, is the stance of the public itself.
Political parties, politicians, officials, institutions and journalists all find themselves in the firing line. Journalists, in particular, have not escaped public anger. Their job is to inform the public about public affairs and to scrutinise power and political actors. Yet journalists, too, are judged and evaluated by citizens. In a democracy, no one is beyond criticism. Critical thinking is a vital weapon in the hands of citizens, which is precisely why freedom of expression underpins democratic systems. But who, in turn, scrutinises the citizens?
The role of citizens in a democracy is crucial. Power derives from them. Their vote and their judgement are the most decisive factors of all. If citizens make mature and rational choices, no politician, institution or journalist can mislead society. Each person bears responsibility for their own decisions. The real question, therefore, is whether citizens are fulfilling their role properly. Raising this question does not absolve politicians, parties or journalists of their responsibilities. But citizens are not free of responsibility either.
Citizens must ask themselves whether they always act responsibly, within the bounds of ethics and legality. Do they assess politicians, parties and journalists fairly and objectively? Too often, their reactions resemble those of fans rather than members of a civic society. Lately, many behave like a crowd on the terraces rather than engaged citizens – cheering one moment, hurling abuse the next.
Recently, I read numerous comments accusing journalists of being “on the take”. These are serious allegations offered without any evidence. Such behaviour is irresponsible and does nothing to improve the situation. On the contrary, it fuels a form of collective irrationality that will almost certainly have destructive consequences.
Individual responsibility and the capacity for rational thought are the twin foundations of Western thought. They form the pillars of Western philosophy and modern ethics. Without them, the concept of human rights would never have emerged. Freedom was enshrined as a right because it presupposed responsible individuals who possess the innate ability to think rationally and distinguish right from wrong without guidance from external authorities.
How close are today’s citizens to that Enlightenment ideal? The problems are real and the times critical. But we cannot allow ourselves to drown in absurdity.