There is something deeply troubling about the way political loyalty can sometimes transform reasonable people into permanent defenders of the indefensible.
The problem is not belonging to a political party. Political parties are essential to democracy. They organise ideas, mobilise citizens and provide competing visions for how a country should be governed.
The real problem begins when party loyalty becomes so absolute that truth itself is forced to take a back seat.
For some political followers, everything their party does is automatically right, while almost everything done by the opposing side is automatically wrong. A questionable decision becomes “politics.” A serious allegation becomes “propaganda.” A contradiction becomes “misunderstanding.” And when evidence becomes difficult to dismiss, the conversation often shifts from the issue itself to who is raising it. That is where political loyalty stops being constructive and starts becoming dangerous.
When the party becomes more important than the principle
A political party is an organisation. It is not a family member, a religion or a football club whose mistakes must be defended simply because they are “ours.” Politicians change. Governments change. Party leaders come and go. Policies are introduced, abandoned and rewritten. But principles should not change simply because the colour of the political party has changed.
If corruption is wrong when committed by one government, it should remain wrong when allegations involve another. If abuse of power is unacceptable under one administration, it should not suddenly become acceptable because the people involved belong to the party one supports.
If a public official should be held accountable for a particular action today, the same standard should apply when political circumstances are reversed tomorrow. Unfortunately, partisan politics can make consistency surprisingly difficult.
One of the most damaging habits in political discourse is selective outrage. A supporter sees wrongdoing on the other side and demands accountability. The same supporter sees something similar involving their own side and immediately searches for an explanation. This creates a strange moral equation: the action is condemned or defended depending not on what happened, but on who allegedly did it. And once that mentality becomes normal, politicians have less incentive to correct themselves.
This is because they know there will always be people willing to defend them. They know that instead of answering difficult questions, they can rely on loyal supporters to attack the journalist, critic, activist or political opponent who raised the issue. The debate then moves away from accountability and becomes a battle between competing camps.
Canada Could Become EU Associate Member In A Historic First
Perhaps one of the greatest misunderstandings in partisan politics is the belief that criticising one’s own party amounts to betraying it. It does not. In fact, criticism from within can be one of the healthiest forms of political participation.
A supporter who says, “I support this party, but I disagree with this particular decision,” is not necessarily weakening the party. They may be helping it.
A political movement that cannot tolerate internal criticism eventually becomes surrounded by people who tell its leaders only what they want to hear. And that is when mistakes can become bigger. The most useful supporter is not necessarily the person who applauds everything. Sometimes the most valuable supporter is the person courageous enough to say: “This is wrong, and we need to fix it.”
The opposition is not automatically right either. Rejecting blind loyalty does not mean blindly embracing the opposition. Political maturity requires something harder: the ability to acknowledge that your preferred party can make mistakes while the opposing party can occasionally make a legitimate point. That requires intellectual honesty.
It means examining claims based on evidence rather than political affiliation. It means asking questions even when the answers are uncomfortable. And perhaps most importantly, it means being willing to change one’s position when credible evidence demands it.
In Ghana for instance, political discussions can quickly become NDC versus NPP, government versus opposition, supporter versus supporter. But the country is bigger than every political party. The ordinary Ghanaian who needs a job does not eat political propaganda. The family struggling with rising living costs does not benefit from partisan insults. The taxpayer does not care which party is responsible when public money is allegedly mismanaged.
Citizens ultimately want competent institutions, accountable leaders, economic opportunity, security and a better quality of life. Political parties are supposed to serve those interests—not replace them. Before defending a politician, perhaps every political supporter should ask one simple question:
“If the person doing this belonged to the other party, would I still defend it?” That question can be uncomfortable. But it is powerful. If the answer is no, then perhaps the issue is not really about principle.
It may simply be about loyalty. And democracy becomes healthier when citizens understand that supporting a political party does not require surrendering their conscience. Vote for the party you believe in. Support the politician whose ideas you find convincing. Defend policies you genuinely believe are beneficial.
The fact is, citizens need the freedom to say “wrong is wrong”, regardless of the political colours involved. That is not betrayal.