Topic: a slap on the faces of patriotic citizens - page 2. (Read 511 times)

Criticism of bad leadership anywhere in the world should be encouraged, because it's important to raise a voice and call a bad government to order by criticizing where they're doing wrong, it wouldn't be right to see things detoriating in the economy and keep quiet, it'll only encourage the leadership to continue in their wrongdoings.

The explanation in the OP that someone criticized the government and called it a zoo, then later comes back to to serve the same country, is ok if he sees the change that he desired coming to manifestation, criticizing your government doesn't mean that you hate your country, it's just the leadership that's you hate. Let us always speak out when we see something going wrong.

Criticism in really sense is good but it should be strategic and constructive that's why I advocate for strong opposition in any administration, when we have a strong opposition you will see that the government will not like to debate from good governance because they will not like the people to know their lapses.

You said something about sudden change of mind to serve the country you once hated, op, to me I think change is a constant thing, so if the people a person decide to serve the country he had hated is this fine, may be he has change his mind on the hate aspect after all he is from the country so he is not banned not to contest in any election so won't he contest.

I came to discovered that critizing your leaders sometimes make them to start doing the right thing to bring development in their various positions in the government, but using your mouth to call your country bad names or using your mouth to bring your country down is not good as a citizen and it make others countries citizens to begin to see you as unwise person or a foolish person.

 if you can go through all those developed countries history very well, you will know that they was undeveloped countries before their citizens begin to attack their leaders in different social media to encourage them to do the right thing for them to know that they are not doing the right thing.

When persons in positions of power choose their own ambition over the country's well-being, it amounts to a betrayal of trust. We select officials to serve the people and work for the greater good, not to make use of their positions for personal benefit.

When these people enter government, their motivations are frequently not matched with the greater good. They are more concerned in furthering their personal interests, whether through wrong operations or destructive goals. This can result in policies that do not benefit the people and even divide the country along race, ethnic origin, or faith boundaries, limiting our ability to address current challenges.

Yes, you are right. When persons in positions of power choose their own ambition over the country's well-being, it amounts to a betrayal of trust. We select officials to serve the people and work for the greater good, not to make use of their positions for personal benefit.

When these people enter government, their motivations are frequently not matched with the greater good. They are more concerned in furthering their personal interests, whether through wrong operations or destructive goals. This can result in policies that do not benefit the people and even divide the country along race, ethnic origin, or faith boundaries, limiting our ability to address current challenges.

You know. Since we are talking about "slaps on the face of citizens", I have thought on how in the United States of America is common news to see someone people advocating for immigrants to be welcomed in and try to settle them somewhere while their asylum cases are processed, whether they are allowed to work while they are there or not, etc.

We could argue that it is reasonable some citizens feel all this attention I migrants are getting is a slap on the face for the homeless people who were born as American citizens, they could feel their government does not care about them.

What are your thoughts about it?

When a country has turned into shit right before your eyes, there's no point forming fluke loyalty. A country that no more respects human rights and all the people that should be behind bars are the people running the country, what else should you call a country like that? A country where the leaders don't care if the people live or die, if they are hungry or not, where justice is a laughable word, what do you call a country like that?
A place where citizens have to provide the things that the government ought to provide yet they still pay taxes to the government for those same things.


You're wrong.
The fact that I do not know how to be Governor doesn't mean I can't criticize a seating state governor. I do not need to know how to drive to know a driver who is being reckless.
There is a reason he is governor and I am not. It means he knows the job, and he can do the job, so if he gets there and finds out he can't do the job then he should resign if he doesn't resign it means he's up to the task, and is ready for the criticisms that come with it.

It is these checks and balances that keep us in check.
A soldier on the battlefield will have to submit a report to someone in an office who doesn't know how things on the ground usually are, but it is that report that keeps us in check. It doesn't mean the person he's reporting to can do his job better than him, it just means he has someone to answer to so he doesn't go out of line.

Criticism is not a bad thing, it comes with the job. People should be allowed to ask questions about what they don't understand, after all, it's these people that put you in that position to serve them. You're only there to serve (in an ideal situation) so there's no point in being there if you can't answer to them.

Voicing out how terrible the government is will just get you out of nowhere if you're in a country that doesn't give importance to democracy. While it's a law and freedom to speak out what they're doing badly, the people that are in the seat vary. There are leaders who are happy to listen to their people and what they're doing wrongly. But there goes those who see criticisms as something bad and won't take them lightly to improve their administration. Luckily we're democratic and we've got freedom of choice and to speak whatever opinion we've got as a support or as oppose to the current administration and government that we're living it. Think of it as a privilege and not everyone equally gets that.

In a country where the rule of law is not working, no equal rights between one tribe and the other, no love, peace, and unity that coexists between its citizens and there is no maximum security in the country, what do you expect some of the country citizens to call their country? A good nation I think(sobs).

It feels so bad that when a country's citizens criticize the government of their nation, for ruling them badly, it turns out to becomes a bad move for those that criticize the government openly. But how the country knows when they are getting it wrong, if they are not criticized. Everyone in a country will praise its country. There are those in those countries wont like call their country a good name no matter how good they perform.

Our government won't continue to oppress and suppress those who stand to speak out the truth for the masses even when their lives are in danger? We won't continue to live in fear without speaking our minds and telling the government how bad they have treated its citizens

The idea that criticism is bad is wrong. Criticism helps the leaders to do something. It is the responsibility of all citizens. If there was no criticism, the leaders would have been involved in corruption.It is a civic duty to criticize leaders when they are doing bad things and to praise them when they are doing good There is no reason for personal grudges here.
***Whenever you see that there is no criticism in a country or a certain area, then you will understand that there is a dictatorship established there and there is no such thing as freedom of speech of the citizens.
No work can progress well without criticism because it is a part of improvement, so we should give constructive criticism no mistake or wrong criticism.
If all leaders were patriots then there would be no criticism and only those leaders who invite criticism are good leaders and those who can't take it have no leadership qualities.
Criticism is very important for people, for institutions, for states, if we want to achieve certain goals, criticism must be invited Research criticism is more problematic to technology critics because many of their mistakes can be reformed after being criticized
Criticism means that bad name is a little misconception. You will be a complete patriot only when you can accept criticism. Whatever you are thinking or doing or trying to do is right because of how you thought if You need criticism.
Finally, I want to say that all of us should not talk about one-sided things it should be constructive so that the one who takes and the one who gives will be treated with love.It is the duty of the citizen to welcome the good work of the state and to criticize the bad work.

People raise a finger on a point but they don't execute itself  Political people are not reliable, they only work to earn money. They are greedy people and their greed does not ends. The nurchuring of these people is very bad, and they does not accept their mistakes. They consider poor people and they does not respect poor people, they only respect a cash. If a person will give cash to them, they will work otherwise they will show red flag to them. These people support terrorist and give safe place to terririst and make a relationship with them, they are not patritiot people because their nurchuring is not like a patritiotic people, they work to get money then that disappear. They  complete study only to print money, not for nurchuring. They make a public fool and introduce new rules and regulations for their benefit.

To me pessimism is a valid point of view if the context is right, though.
It just take a look a countries like Argentina, Venezuela or even Mexico, they suffer from long term social and economical problems. In the case of the first two, it has been a important flow of migration in order to escape those problems, it is because people pessimism on the future.

One can be pessimism and at the same time love one's country and people. Being against the current situation and the current políticians of a nation (and being pessimistic about it) does not make one unpatriotic, in my opinion.

Also, it is funny how one can talk about this topic and at the same time Trump runs for the presidency while calling the USA a third world country and a nation in decline, because of almost 4 years he has been away from the White House.

When leaders encounter criticism, I believe they tend to develop even more and enhance their governance in order to avoid being dubbed a total failure to the country. Criticism is normal and tolerated in a democracy, unlike when it is a military government and there is no right to free expression of speech (criticism).

And when a citizen shows no regard for its government and insults it, I would rather label that citizen a pessimist than an optimist. A person who does not appreciate and value his or her nation will not be loyal to its people, even if he is granted the authority to rule over them. Such an attitude as a citizen makes you an unpatriotic citizen and should not be allowed to rule over the patriotic citizens.

If your leaders or countrymen behave like animals in a zoo, there is nothing wrong to call the country a zoo. You are only telling the truth. Every citizen will be proud of a country that protects the lives and properties of its inhabitants. When there are daily occurrences of the killing of innocent citizens and destruction of life and properties without any positive response from the government, such a country is not even a zoo because the zoo is well organized, it should be called a jungle. In the jungle, there is lawlessness and survival of the fittest.

Donald Trump called some countries in Africa 'shitholes'. While former Prime Minister of England David Cameron said Nigeria and Afghanistan are "fantastically corrupt". These comments from these two great leaders are correct, so you don't expect citizens to see blood and call it water because of national interest or nationalism. There is no pride in a nation that is governed by heartless men that derives joy in seeing the people suffer.

It is more complex than that, we are talking about people who is literally leaving their country out of despair for a better life, because corruption, crime, reckless economical choices and lack of opportunities in general have pushed them to take that path.

They have reached a point where they rather to risk their life in a dangerous travel to continue to keep going or die trying to provide for themselves and their families.
At least in Europe and the United States there is more law and order than in many of the African countries and Latin America, where one is at the mercy of corrupted police officers, who can arrest anyone, lock anyone up without a trial and even resort to torture, all of it just to milk money out the families, and that is just the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately.

a slap on the faces of patriotic citizens


... and a jack-boot on their necks.

I agree with that fact that,  third world countries are faced with a lot of challenges and they are not even ready to make any changes to improve the condition of the continent,  most African countries have similar challenges and that is because of their neo-colonizing and inability to develop a workable part that can bring African out of the overbearing challenges facing the continent,  there is no doubt that leadership have been identified as Africa biggest challenge.

And if we can get the right leaders that could figure out a way to fix the bastardized system and bring in new principles and policies that can change the face of things in Africa as a continent.

We have both identified that there is problem in leadership and this is especially in third world countinent although some of them have tried to put their system right like South Africa. But majority of the leaders in other countries don't want to cause a change to happen rather they want to keep benefitting from a bad situation, they rig themselves into power and want to subvert the constitution yet they don't want a military rule. They are civilian government in outlook but military in process and in their minds and because they have that military mentality to subjugate, they go after every of their critics that was not able to run to asylum and put them in jail without proper and public trier.

In a country that has a democratic system in it, it is indeed not a problem if the people express opinions and criticize a regulation set by the government that is not pleasing and does not make the people comfortable. The name is also a democratic country, which means that everyone who lives and is in that country has the right/can issue an opinion. But to issue dirty or insulting words towards the government or the country's leader, indeed this will definitely be strictly prohibited by every country, especially by countries that have a democratic system. But it cannot be denied, if the people are too annoyed with the government, for example, their opinion is not heard, or the government makes rules that are detrimental to society. From my personal experience, sometimes dirty words are often heard from the community.

To be honest, I didn't see the clear point written in your post, which I quoted. What I can catch from this writing, you seem to offend someone, who previously insulted a country, but in the end that person entered the government. Then what country do you mean, what country is it?
Your explanation is a bit unclear, so try to explain again so that it is clearer.
But here I will conclude, the point is you don't agree with the people you call hypocrites if you enter the government system. Because you think that in terms of personality and morals, this person is very inappropriate to be included in the ranks of the government (correct me if I'm wrong).

If my conclusion is correct, I also agree with that opinion. Because if people used to insult or insult the country's leaders or the government system, then people like that should be prevented from entering the government. Because at first glance it is clear that people like that really only want to benefit themselves.

A vast majority of the problem lies in the system and just like you have said the action of the leader is mostly controlled by the system on the ground and most problems that we think are leadership problems are actually system problems and to start with, any country that you see it government losing legitimacy from the citizens such countries have one thing in common which are faulty constitutions weak institutions.

More also a lack of national developmental goals, all of which is what gave room to bad leadership since the system could be bastardized at will.