There is a growing, twisted logic in our public discourse that paints anyone who openly aligns with the opposition as morally superior and intellectually sharper than those who sympathize with the government. In this framing, identifying with the opposition becomes a badge of courage, while supporting the government is recast as complicity, compromise, or even cowardice. Those who try to stand as impartial judges, watchdogs, or simply as voices offering alternative perspectives are dismissed as fence-sitters that are accused of moral lapse, dishonesty, and a lack of conviction.
The opposition is made to sound like God’s word made political, sacred by definition, while everyone else becomes the devil’s advocate by default. It is a simplification that treats the government as an enemy to be opposed by virtue of its existence, and treats party affiliation as proof of moral standing. Yet while the role of opposition is vital for balance, for ensuring that counter-narratives exist and power is not left unchecked, history and political science remind us that opposition parties are not immune to the same flaws they condemn.
Political theorists call this, subjectivism in political judgment, the tendency to evaluate actions not by their merit but by who commits them. Scholars of political behavior, from Joseph Schumpeter to Giovanni Sartori, have long warned that opposition can drift into sabotage, blindness, and the deliberate amplification of fear through exaggerated narratives. The opposition often projects itself as the only credible alternative, directing public frustration at the ruling party while privately signaling readiness to embrace the same actors when opportunity shifts.
On the other side, pro-government supporters are no less selective. They tend to see only the positive, downplaying failures while framing criticism as disloyalty. But many are motivated by ideals that deserve recognition: the desire to see government succeed, to preserve continuity, to douse the fire of heated politics, and to model tolerance and emotional maturity. Ironically, the same people who accuse the government of nepotism, ethnic favoritism, and moral compromise often become its staunchest defenders once their side takes power.
This is where the contradiction becomes clear. Citizens who wait for power only to justify whatever their government does, whether right or wrong cannot claim higher moral ground than those they deride as blind loyalists. The same people who once condemned nepotism celebrate it when it benefits their kin. The same voices that rejected political appointments as corruption applaud them when their allies receive the call. The agenda is often set not by principle, but by proximity to power.
Supporting the weak or the ordinary citizen does not automatically make one an absolute opponent of government. Governments, like individuals, are capable of getting things right. To deny that is to trade analysis for partisanship.
This is why the position of the fence-sitter, often mocked, may in fact be the most modest and intellectually honest stance. Political psychologists describe it as cognitive independence, the ability to assess issues on their merit rather than through the filter of group loyalty. It is the position that judges actions, not personalities; policies, not tribes. It acknowledges a truth we often resist: none of us, neither government nor opposition, is right all the time, and none is wrong all the time.
In the end, honor does not belong to the side you choose. It belongs to the honesty with which you judge the side you choose.
Bagudu Mohammed
bagudumohammed15197@gmail.com
