When being right makes us wrong and being on the wrong side makes us righteous

In public discourse, particularly in politics, there is a curious paradox, sometimes we become so convinced that we are right that we end up being wrong. And sometimes, those who admit their errors are the ones who move society closer to the truth. This paradox is especially relevant when we analyse the achievements and failures of governments.

In our political space, analysis of government performance has increasingly become less about facts and more about allegiance. Supporters often see only success, while opponents see only failure. In such an environment, everyone claims to be right. Yet when analysis becomes trapped in this rigid thinking, the nation loses the benefit of honest evaluation.

Political analysis should not be a contest of loyalty. It should be a search for truth. Governments, like all human institutions, are capable of both accomplishment and error. A government may build roads, expand schools, and improve healthcare access, yet still struggle with inflation, unemployment, or policy implementation. A fair-minded analyst must be able to acknowledge both realities at the same time.

Unfortunately, our political culture sometimes punishes such balance. When one acknowledges a government achievement, critics quickly label him a sympathiser. When one highlights a failure, supporters accuse him of sabotage. In this climate, many analysts retreat into partisan comfort zones where praise or condemnation becomes automatic.

But this is precisely where the paradox emerges: when we defend our political positions so rigidly that we refuse to recognise facts, we may feel right, yet we contribute to collective misunderstanding. Conversely, those who are willing to admit that their side has made mistakes may appear wrong to their allies, yet they often bring the discussion closer to truth.

Serious political analysis must therefore rise above the temptation of partisanship. Analysts should be guided by evidence, not emotion. They should ask simple but important questions: What has the government done well? Where has it fallen short? What lessons can be learned for future policy?

A mature democracy depends on citizens who can hold two ideas in their minds at the same time: that a government can succeed in some areas and fail in others. Recognising achievements does not make one a propagandist. Highlighting failures does not make one an enemy of the state. Both are essential to responsible citizenship.

Indeed, the purpose of political analysis is not to score points for one party or another. It is to help society understand what works, what does not, and how governance can improve. When analysis becomes a tool for blind defence or relentless attack, it stops serving the public interest.

As citizens and commentators, we must guard against the illusion of always being right. Political humility is not weakness; it is wisdom. The ability to say, “This policy worked,” or “This decision was a mistake,” regardless of which party is responsible, is the hallmark of serious public thinking.

In the end, nations progress not because their citizens shout the loudest about being right, but because they are willing to confront the truth, even when it challenges their own political loyalties.

If we embrace that approach, our political conversations will become less about proving who is right and more about discovering what is right for the country.

 

SOCRATE SAFO SPEAKS

 

EDITOR’S NOTE: The author, Socrate Safo is a Ghanaian Film Director and culture advocate. He worked as a Creative Arts director at the National Commission on Culture.