Topic: a slap on the faces of patriotic citizens (Read 511 times)

Governments will not allow such kind of protest in the first place, at rare situations it might get out of their hands with the help of social media which unite the people from everywhere around but those kinds of solutions for every problem we face is not realistic either cause everyone has to live their life and can't protest on streets every day that's where the democracy wins even if the parties failed to fulfil the people needs they still go on and win elections.

Yeah that's very true but there are ways that you can raise points and your voice may be heard, often times I've seen many less influential and common persons make remarks about the government on radio that lasts for weeks and months and many people hear about it and the government has no other choice but to act rightly about it to prevent some kind of protest.

One thing I believe is the power of a united citizen can counter that of the government, if majority were to stand against the government they would mostly likely win, but that would never happen under the watchful eyes of the government they bless some people to stand and give positive testimonials about their work and when such protest were to occur you would have a divided house amongst citizens.

Today people on Twitter/X were feeling what many of them considered to be a slap on their face, as the speaker of the house Mike Johnson seems to have allowed for more aid for Ukraine and Israel to be send, even though he had declared it was not okey to send help abroad without securing the border of the United States with Mexico.
Thousands of people feeling what they would call a slap on their faces as 60 billion dollars of people's money are going to be send in form of military equiments and weapons for allies of the USA to defend themselves against terrorists and an aggressive big country as Russia is.

It had been months since the last package of aid for Ukraine, let us see how long Mike Johnson can keep his position as speaker of the house after this debacle and assumed treason from him to the core of the MAGA movement. Even though I believe it is important for USA to help allies, I would not blame anyone who feels this amount of resources being sent abroad as a slap on the face.

What do you all think about the happenings of today in the Capitol of the USA?

Ayn Rand was a woman who defected from Russia to the US in 1926. She was politically smart, having lived through the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Read about Ayn Rand here - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ayn+rand&ia=web

Regarding this topic, here are her answers regarding Democracy and Republic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV5arQxexyg.

If you are a 14th Amendment citizen of the US, your status in America is different than if you are simply a man/woman living on the land of America. How do you become a citizen of the US? By accepting that you are being called a citizen by the US government, because you signed up for some benefit from government.

Just remember, you are NOT a US citizen until you agree with government that you are. The 'person' named on the paperwork that you signed is a separate person. You are a man/woman. And when the salesmen (the courts) trick you into saying that you are a citizen - saying that you are that 'person' listed on the paperwork - what can government do but honor what you said?... at least until you contradict what you said in the right way.

If your signature isn't on the document that has your name on it, that 'person' is not one of your persons. Fourth Amendment:
Are you secure in your persons? If the court document has your name on it, but you haven't agreed that it is one of your persons, somebody has stolen one (or more) of your persons, and adapted it to make a new fake person. Then they try to get you to agree that their created person is you.

Think about this, and then stand up to the Democracy by remaining within the Republic. How to remain in the Republic? Don't agree that you are the person on their document. Then sue the judge and the attorney for stealing your persons and adapting them for their own use, which is against the 4th Amendment.

This is the reason why the US has become as strong as it has. If this was taught in school, the US would have remained honorable, as well.

Where democracy is truly working in a country, you will see leaders be happy when they see criticism from their followers for some areas they are not doing well in their various offices, so that they will take correction to improve and you will begin to see the country progress.

Government officials that don't allow criticism in their country, there is no way you will not see corruption around their country because they feel that is the way to lead people, not knowing that they are destroying the country for not allow criticism.

Many people have the law that stated that people have the freedom of speech, but there are some countries in the world, you cannot criticize any government officials in the country and if you do they will use their Arm forces to arrest you to teach you some lessons with their political powers.

Absolutely agree with you , criticism is way of passing information to our leaders on what is affecting the citizens, that they are not doing right. if done constructively, although not all criticism can be of positive one because criticism it'self is always a negative signal but one should not go to the extreme. That can make even what he /she is criticizing will turn out to affect him negatively.

There is one thing I observed about critics they always have reason to criticize weather good or bad but in the aspect of most criticism it's centered on bad leader not able to handle the basics need if the citizens,any government that failed on it responsibility should not expect praise than criticism.

Even though the government already has a strong system, there are still errors and fraud, this is where the activists and the community come to criticize it, because without criticizing sometimes the government has unknowingly made rules that are not pro-people. actually the criticism is to develop in a better direction, what the community feels is not comparable to the rules made by the government sometimes. even demonstrations are also important and regulated in world law

Criticizing the leader is legal and a right of the people in democracies. Although the critics against the country's government are in the minority, their eloquence is high. Criticizing the country is by no means wise. The country will look as beautiful as you decorate it. A country cannot be organized by the country and the government, of course the role of the people is the most important here. Criticizing the country means criticizing yourself. And a wise person never criticizes himself.

It does not matter whether you are a common person or a man of caliber, criticism ought to be constructive when talking to people of the authority. No leader will tolerate abusive criticism from anyone regardless of what the criticism is all about. Democracy guarantee freedom of speech but it doesn't guarantee your freedom after speech. Criticism is very necessary in every sane society to help improve effective governance but some of the critics lack the proper wisdom of communication, their criticism always comes in the form of attack with vulgar and abusive words while they disregard the respect for the office or the officer they are criticizing. Responsible leaders are ready to welcome a constructive criticism and take correction but when you disguise to insult your leaders and hide under criticism, you deserve any treatment that comes afterwards

If you are a common man then most likely you will not be allowed to criticize your leader, the government will supress the idea directly or indirectly once they saw it's gaining attention. There is no freedom of speech anywhere but it varies from one to another country. We can't do anything at all other than accepting and learn to live with it.

Just like OP has said, there is nothing wrong in criticising a bad government but you must be careful not to give a destructive kind of of criticism. You criticise with facts so you do not not get charged for defamation of character because no law will protect you if you are actually engaging in a destructive criticism against the government. You should also be away of the system of government your country practices,  some governments will not permit any form of public opinion.  But, as far as democracy is concerned, every citizen has the right to criticize a government that is not living up to expectations. Constructive criticisms serves as a reminder to them that people are actually watching.

Everyone has their own opinion so anybody can say what they like which is left to them the consequences they might faces.
It is better we respect our various countries because this is the only way to serve the nation and keep trying to see things get better.
We don't have to pose like we are the only one the bad society is affecting, everyone is facing it and we need to be wise and keep up to doing the good works that will induce others to follow the ama patter instead of causing problems ups and downs.

I would definitely criticise any bad leader or government that I I know isn't doing their job well, you can't promise the world and go there and do nothing, it's right to criticise bad leadership to bring their error to their notice. And if in the process you get angry enough to hate the country there is no problem expressing yourself in that way, and if eventually after a while you notice good changes and decide to serve your country all over, then your not bad just a better citizen than others that did nothing.

You can criticize the people of a country there is nothing wrong here. As a citizen of the country you can do everything but it will be your determination for the country where you live. But here the government will play a face role the criticism of the leaders will be less because of corruption they will have more impact later. Leaders have increased their power by pushing the country's society to death on the battlefield for ages.

When it comes to serving the county I strong believe people like this have no choice but rather obey the principles and standard set, I have seen several people like this hating their country with passion and sometimes they do die early, why? People like this will want to stand for the truth and whenever things get so bad they'll be the first to speak out but surprising our leaders will always fight against the voice with all means and using unnecessary allegations. What's real here is people should always stand for the truth and not for unnecessary opinion when there's nothing important about the words. I don't know what the op is really referring to but a real critic are very rare to find cause they're always hiding for fear of what the government will do.

In certain government leadership, even criticism doesn't have any positive effect to change but the situation remains the same. Some people in government, once they get in their they shut their ears to any other thing and do what is in their mind whether for good or bad and they would never arrest any body for what they have said or criticized but some other leaders never want any opposition, they frustrate every attempt of criticism and you see opposition members going into exile to run away from being killed. So I think it also depends on who is involved

If their is no criticism of the leaders by most of the citizens who shared a different views, then just know that something is really wrong in that society, so criticism is normal In a society, when the leader is not doing the right thing.

 Another thing is that it also depends on the kind of person leading, most people don't take criticism lightly, they always feel attacked, when criticized, so to me, criticism is a normal thing for leaders, and it should be used as moral buster to step up, and do better.

I think it can co-exist. I can say that I hate the government of my country but
it does not mean that I hate the land I live in and the people it hosts.

If me serving the same country I say I hate is hypocritical then so be it.
I am serving the country because I see a problem and a solution I can give.

What’s worse is someone who leaves the country and gives up on it.
As a citizen, I can criticize my country and do everything I know to make it better.

Yes, criticisms are one of the keywords that optimizes the political leaders to stimulating of innovations and governing in a accountable productivities which brings about improvements to the societies otherwise the government would feel they Masses are being comfortable by the ways are being governed. The government deserves to be hitting hard on them before they masses messages could get through their stairs otherwise on a solemnly motion, there'd be absolutely ignorance of the government towards the masses under their watch. That is why freedom of speech is important to the society under the watch of a government.

The fact I don't have the right to legally denied to deny country doesn't mean I can't air out of being regretful of being a citizen to the country. If a countries go government does well of course everyone of it would embrace and be grateful being one of its citizens but you can't expect me to adore a country that doesn't good of me and isn't grateful to treat me well for being one of the citizens. Everyone has a choice.

The only trouble with the US leadership lies in figuring out who they are. They are not the people in Washington. They are the average people around the country, who won't take control of their politicians in Washington. They could if they wanted to. And they just might be starting to want to - https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/jiauh/4/.

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.

What brought this on? Is there a particular event that you are referring to with this statement? The thing that immediate comes to mind is internet censorship, which has recently been embraced by the Canadian government. Immediately I wonder what they are trying to hide. The wildfire conspiracy? The covid hoax? Who knows… I just know it’s wrong and should be criticized.

Is like the feeling of something being better in your neigbhours compound because you are afar from it. However, no country is perfect and those citizens that feel bad about their country may have such feeling because of certain policy that they don't like. Like I have heard some people complain of US foreign policy and the drive to act as the watch dog of the world instead of utilizing such funds in the home. So this could be one area of criticism.

I have seen a lot of this and this is more common to the younger generations that are like this. They're mocking their citizenships and just because they're able to move to another country and able to get a residency there, they're telling all shits of where the roots they've come from.

It's normal to criticize when you're seeing a lot of bad things going on. But it can't just turn into a better land on an instant, that's why I like those leaders that instead of taking time into making themselves good, they're showing what they're capable of and what they can do for their country.

I think it's understandable and they don't have to choice, they don't have a place to go and it's easy to tell that they just have to move from here and there but not everyone is capable of that.

Most of often say things we will not be able to tolerate, if you should be in a leadership position, can we accept such to be happening under our leadership, can we condole public criticism or we will be the one to make law against public hate speech and go against activism, democracy governance is not a military kind of rule the people have no choice than to comply with the directives from the central authorities, in democracy, everyone has the right to choose the leader they want, express their interest and show concern with the way they were being governed.

Are you talking about politicians who “serve” the country but are really corrupt? When you serve the country, you’re not serving the government but rather the people of your country. At least that’s how it should be. Remember that there are a lot of unfortunate countries out there who aren’t even meeting the basic needs of a lot of their citizens so if they say they regret being a citizen of that country then that makes sense. They might genuinely want better for themselves as well as for others. I see democracy as a privilege that we have to make use of when given. The government exists for the sole purpose of protecting and serving its citizens. If the appointed leaders aren’t fit for the job anymore then the citizens can and should criticize them.

Ironically, This reminds me some occasions I had the chance to talk to people from the United States, relatively young people who told me than their country is a mess and they do not like it.

There was one who literally told me that USA was as bad as Iran, or something like it, I manage her to retract that statement by offering my personal perspective but still thought USA was really bad.

It is interesting how people from countries which are assumed to be rich can badmouth their own motherland, while at the same time there are waves of people trying to move there both legally and illegally.

Democracy simply is NOT the rule of the people. When will anybody begin to understand this? Democracy is simply a different form of dictatorship. Here is how it works in short fashion.

In a Democracy, some majority of the people elect their favorite government leaders into office. These leaders might do a few things that the majority wanted them to do. They might even do some things that the MINORITY wanted them to do. Then they do whatever they want... often against both, the majority and the minority. DICTATORSHIP!

A truly right form of government is one where the leaders only do things that don't harm the people. And it is one that a real live 'people' is only attacked by government for literally harming another real live 'people' or damaging his property... or by literal threat that is directed against another real live 'people'.

On top of this, any accusation against a 'people' is adjudicated by a 12-'people' jury of his peers. Any government official acting outside of the way the government legally and lawfully says that they must act, is acting personally, not in his government capacity. He can be attacked as a 'people' and brought to court as a 'people', not as the government official.

I say 'people' above. A person is a name on a document in US law. It might be connected to a man/woman of similar name. A 'people' is a man/woman adult.

Get this stuff into your head. You want a Republic, where any of the laws that government makes can be overruled by the people... a 12-'people' jury. You won't want a Democracy unless you want a dictatorship.

Since democracy is the rule of the people, it has opened our eyes and minds, so we will share our thoughts.

Being a leader requires a lot of effort and dedication, which some leaders are not willing to give. Some leaders are only there for their own self-serving purposes and will simply act in the way they like without regard to the consequences.

Since it is a democratic administration, we can criticize it and demand improvements if we find anything wrong.

If the constituency isn't criticizing the leader, there's probably something wrong. At any time there exists, at least, some level of the population dissatisfied with the state of affairs. And these people tend to yell the loudest, even when being in the minority unfortunately. But that's what democracy allows, for good reason.

When a leader is not doing well it is not expected for the leader to get praises , definitely citizens will criticised the leaders because it is their right to do so. Citizens must correct leaders by criticising them to do the right things, if leaders are not criticise they will do what ever they want to do. Their is  no part in the world that  leaders are not criticise,  this is done for them to serve citizens,  to do right things why they were voted for the position they have.

^^^ The Dems love you.     

In a real and ideal situation, those who criticize government are suppose to be those allowed to show what they have to offer because it may seem that they have better idea. I said ideal because assuming the system is not corrupt, so that they can genuinely offer something positive to growth of the country but the problem is when such person get into power or government and meet bad system, they eat their words and start doing same thing that they have criticized or they are frustrated out of the system by those who are feeding from the corrupt system.

There is nothing wrong with holding a critical opinion about your leader. Just remember to hold enough of a critical opinion about your own ideas that you find out what the truth is.

How do you become a citizen of your country? You were probably born into it. Or you voluntarily joined your country. You can voluntarily leave your country any time. And this doesn't mean you have to leave the land you are living on. Who determines what land belongs to what country? And what authority do they have to say make this determination? It's all arbitrarily done. But if they hold you in contempt for stating that a certain piece of land that you own is your country, you might be right, but if they are stronger, you might be dead.

there is absolutely nothing wrong in critizing your leader. criticism is part of democracy but when you call your country a zoo and all sorts of names and regret being a citizen, you have crossed the redline.
   I also have no problem with some people's vituperation and hate over there country but to suddenly decide to serve the same country you hate is hypocrisy of the highest order. and such people will have nothing to offer.they want to make use of the government to gain there own personal subscription, if appointed at the end. Because there are enemies of the country.