Your critics are your best friends
Friends come in all shapes and sizes, as the saying goes. But a true friend is one who sees us more clearly than we see ourselves. They see our flaws, our good sides and bad sides, and are willing to say the things that most people won't say. They tell us what we don't want to hear. They are the best reflection we can have of ourselves because a true friend genuinely cares about us and holds up a mirror for us to see the things we don't want to see, admit or face. They hold us accountable for our mistakes, and guide us back on our path when we tend to stray. Then, there are friends, or should I say, false/fake friends, or flatterers, who will compliment you, even for the silliest of causes, and never criticise you even if it is needed. Be careful, these are the types of friends you must watch out for because they are only complimentary and affirming when they have something to gain.
Likewise, when you are in power, beware of those people that praise you all the time. People who criticise the policies, decisions and actions of a government—which go against the constitutional, social and moral foundations of the country—are true friends of that government, not its enemy. Pointing out its mistakes, criticising the flaws and talking about uncomfortable truths of the state do not mean you are being ungrateful or unpatriotic. It means you think critically of certain issues and problems and you make your opinion known so that those are addressed.
Constructive criticism is far better than quietly accepting everything and swallowing your frustration. If you look back in history, you will see that a lot of social changes and revolutions have occurred precisely because people have questioned the actions of their government. Most, if not all, who criticise government actions and decisions do so out of patriotism: they want their country to be better. Criticism comes from a place of hope, not of despair. Criticism is an important pillar of democracy without which democracy itself will be at risk. As former US President John F Kennedy had famously said, "Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed, and no republic can survive."
Unfortunately, lately we as a nation have become a bit too sensitive when it comes to criticism. While constructive criticism points out our mistakes and shows us where and how improvements can be made, we seem unwilling to accept such feedback graciously. We seem to think that any sort of criticism—whether telling a cricketer that he has flaws in his batting technique, or warning a friend about a certain relationship, or reminding someone of their manners—comes with an "ulterior motive". Likewise, whenever people disagree with the government's decisions and policies or criticise their leaders for their mistakes, or write an unflattering opinion piece, they are labelled "unpatriotic", "conspirator" or "anti-state".
The fact is, we seldom try to recognise the possibility that what we consider right may actually be wrong and vice versa. It is understandable that no one likes to hear "I told you so" or be told to their face that they are wrong, but giving and receiving advice, feedback and even criticism are key to effective leadership and decision making.
In a truly free society, criticism of a government's decisions is more than a right—it is an act of patriotism. Julian Barnes, the English writer, once said, "The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonourably, foolishly, viciously." Unfortunately, in recent times, we have noticed that partisan politics have created divisions not only among common people but also among our so-called intellectuals and civil society members. Many of them, even when they think something is wrong or bad for the country, don't utter a word; they tend to see everything around them through a partisan eye. The popular understanding is, the civil society and the intellectuals are supposed to act as a bridge between the warring political groups by creating space and dialogue to reduce tension and bring the concerns of the citizens to the forefront in a productive manner.
Instead, some of our intellectuals and civil society members have turned sycophantic. They are always seen blindly praising the views and actions of their leaders. Sycophancy is a threat to democracy and democracy cannot thrive in countries where freedoms of thought and discussion are denied.
A democratic society requires the active participation of its citizens and the government must treat all the citizens with respect, because it is there to serve them— not the other way around. Even if the government feels that it is being criticised unfairly, it should not retaliate with an extreme knee-jerk reaction; it must listen to the views of the people, even those with whom it does not necessarily agree. As Winston Churchill once said, "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
Abu Afsarul Haider graduated in economics and business administration from Illinois State University, USA, and is currently involved in international trade in Dhaka.
Email: afsarulhaider@gmail.com