LETTER: If politicians want our support, they must be prepared to hear our criticism

DEAR News Of The Area,

POLITICIANS are quick to use social media when they want to promote an announcement, celebrate a government funding commitment, or take credit for a community project.

But what happens when the public disagrees with them?

Social media has become one of the most-powerful tools politicians use to communicate with the public.

It allows elected representatives to reach thousands of people instantly, promote their achievements, and present their version of events without relying on traditional media.

But there is a growing question that deserves to be asked: If politicians are prepared to use social media to promote themselves, why are some unwilling to allow the public to challenge them on the same platforms?

When negative comments disappear, criticism goes unanswered. When people find their comments hidden, it raises legitimate questions about transparency and accountability.

Of course, there is a difference between reasonable criticism and abusive, threatening or deliberately offensive content.

Politicians have every right to moderate genuine abuse, threats, spam and personal attacks. Nobody should be expected to tolerate that behaviour.

However, criticism of government decisions, public spending, planning proposals, environmental policies or an elected representative’s performance is a different matter entirely.

These are legitimate subjects for public debate, and voters should be able to question the people they elect without worrying that their comments will simply vanish because they are inconvenient.

A politician’s social media page may be privately managed, but the person behind it holds a public position and makes decisions that affect the community.

That brings with it a responsibility to engage honestly with the people they represent.

If a politician posts about a new project and receives comments questioning its cost, the consultation process or the benefits to the community, those questions deserve answers.

Hiding the comments does not make the concerns disappear. It only leaves people wondering why their elected representative is unwilling to address them publicly.

It can also create a misleading impression of public support. When critical comments are hidden while supportive comments remain visible, visitors to the page may see a one-sided conversation rather than the full range of community opinion.

That is not a reliable picture of public sentiment.

Politicians should not confuse criticism with hostility. Nor should they mistake disagreement for disrespect. In a healthy democracy, people must be free to question decisions, challenge claims and demand explanations.

The public does not elect representatives simply to watch them announce achievements. They elect them to represent their interests, listen to their concerns and be accountable for their decisions. That accountability should not stop when the conversation moves online.

If an elected representative believes their decision is right, they should be able to explain why. If the facts support their position, they should be prepared to present them. And if the public raises legitimate concerns, they should be willing to listen.

Nobody expects politicians to agree with every comment or respond to every individual post. But there is a clear difference between choosing not to respond and deliberately removing reasonable criticism from public view.

One is a decision about how to communicate. The other can undermine confidence in the openness of the discussion.

The same standard should apply regardless of political party, level of government or personal beliefs.

Whether it is a local councillor, a state MP or a federal minister, the principle remains the same: public accountability should not depend on whether a comment is politically convenient.

Perhaps politicians should ask themselves a simple question before hiding a critical comment: Would I be comfortable explaining publicly why this person’s reasonable criticism needed to be hidden?

If the answer is no, perhaps the comment should remain visible.

Social media should be a place where communities can question, debate and hold their representatives accountable, not simply a carefully managed display of political announcements and congratulatory messages.

Politicians cannot demand that the public listen to them while refusing to listen to the public in return.

If they want trust, they must earn it. If they want respect, they must demonstrate accountability. And if they want to use social media to promote their work, they should be prepared to accept the reasonable scrutiny that comes with public office.

Democracy is not just about having a voice when you agree with those in power. It is about having a voice when you disagree, too.

The real test of a politician’s commitment to transparency is not how they handle praise. It is how they respond when the public challenges them.

If I were ever elected as a politician I would encourage transparent public feedback. The community deserves better than a one-way conversation.

Regards,

Troy Radford,

Tanilba Bay.