SHOULD JOURNALISTS DEMAND ANSWERS?

Sir,

The recent and controversial breakfast meeting held on Friday last week between the country’s government, led by the Prime Minister Russell Dlamini, and editors of print and online media, brings or evokes a critical question that deserves close examination.How should seasoned and experienced politicians, who have risen to the highest echelons of power and responsibility, handle and respond to criticism from the media and the general public?

The highly-publicised public spat between Prime Minister Russell Dlamini and the Editor of The Nation Magazine, Bheki Makhubu, has thrust this issue into the national spotlight and forced citizens to grapple with the delicate balance between the government’s need for accountability and the media’s role as the Fourth Estate.

Confrontation

This confrontation raises pertinent questions about how criticism directed at politicians should be conducted - should it be done with a respectful and measured tone that acknowledges the gravity of their position, or should journalists exercise their ethical duty to demand answers and keep those in power answerable to the people, even if it means adopting a more uncompromising and hard-hitting style? Conversely, the reactions and responses of the politicians themselves when faced with such criticism also warrant careful examination. Should they rise above the fray and respond with poise and statesmanship, or can we expect displays of anger, arrogance, or even sarcasm - emotions that may resonate with their core supporters, but ultimately undermine the credibility and dignity of their office?

In the volatile and often cutthroat world of politics, public figures are routinely subjected to intense scrutiny and criticism from various quarters - the media, opposition parties, and the general public. While it is only natural for individuals to feel defensive and protective when their actions and decisions are called into question, it is imperative for seasoned politicians, who have willingly taken on the mantle of leadership, to handle such criticism with a maturity and composure that rises above the fray.

Emotions

Giving in to below par or immature emotions and reacting with anger or contempt may score short-term political points, but it ultimately erodes public trust and undermines the very foundations of a healthy democracy. The manner in which this delicate balance between criticism and response is navigated has profound implications, not just for the individuals involved, but for the entire fabric of the nation’s political discourse. It is a challenge that demands careful consideration, nuance, and a steadfast commitment to the principles of transparency, accountability, and respectful dialogue.

One of the primary reasons why politicians should demonstrate maturity, in the face of criticism, is that it sets a positive example for the public. As prominent public figures, politicians are often looked up to as role models, and their behaviour serves to shape the tone and norms for how individuals in society should respond to criticism. By maintaining their poise, composure, and civility in the face of adversity and attacks, politicians can inspire and encourage others to engage in constructive, thoughtful, and gracious responses to criticism, rather than resorting to defensive, dismissive, or confrontational reactions. Moreover, when politicians are able to handle criticism with a mature and measured approach, it can significantly enhance their credibility and standing in the eyes of the voting public.

Responding

By responding to critiques and challenges with well-reasoned arguments, logical reasoning, and a willingness to engage in open and honest dialogue, politicians can demonstrate their capacity for substantive and constructive discourse.This not only earns them greater respect from the electorate, but it also portrays them as individuals who are open to feedback, willing to address the valid concerns of the public, and committed to governing in a transparent and accountable manner. Furthermore, a mature and level-headed response to criticism can help politicians avoid escalating conflicts and potentially damaging their reputations. In the fast-paced, 24-hour news cycle and highly polarized political landscape driven by various mediums of communication, a hasty, emotionally-charged, or confrontational reaction to criticism can quickly snowball into a full-blown controversy that overshadows the original issue and distracts from the policy debates and governance priorities.This is exactly the current, unfolding consequences of the controversial Breakfast Meeting held last week.

Undermine

As evidenced by the unfortunate confrontation between the prime minister and a member of the press, such impulsive and inflammatory responses can undermine the public’s trust and faith in their elected representatives. By contrast, a poised, thoughtful, and substantive handling of criticism can enable politicians to maintain the moral high ground, project an image of confidence and competence, and ultimately enhance their credibility, as effective and trustworthy leaders. Ultimately, the capacity for politicians to respond to criticism with maturity and grace is not only a mark of strong character and leadership, but it also serves a crucial function in upholding the democratic norms and institutions that underpin a healthy and vibrant political system.

By modelling constructive and civil discourse, politicians can help foster a political culture that values reasoned debate, respectful disagreement, and a shared commitment to the common good, rather than one defined by partisan rancour, personal attacks, and the erosion of democratic values. My plea? Let’s endeavour to criticise with poise and accept criticism in a mature manner. I sincerely pray and hope nothing sinister is being deviously planned to ‘fix’ or ‘put’ Bheki Makhubu in his place...We live in a vindictive environment.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: