Independents immune from criticism?

THE EDITOR: There is a prevailing fallacy about independent thought, or having an opinion, or as in the politics, having a position as independent senators, that such, in each case, is an infallible right not to be questioned.

But even as everyone has a right to an opinion, once it is foisted on others the latter has the equal right to question that opinion, which itself is questionable, if to the one offering the original opinion the response is illogical, unfair, unjust and the like.

Such a process of reciprocal engagement of issues and ideas is the essence of critical thinking leading to a more informed position on the subject at hand (Errol Benjamin: Critical Thinking for Tertiary Level – A Self-Instructional Course).

The issue here is a seeming infallibility attributed to those labelled as independent senators in the local politics, but none such can lay claim or be endowed with that status as a right without the expectation of rebuttal.

If it is felt on one side, in this case the government, that the independent senators took a position not in sync with its position, it must show just cause for its disapproval in a manner that is free of bias, illogic and misplaced emotionalism. The latter is crucial for if even an opinion is yours, there must be a moral underpinning to it involving a universal sense of what is right and what is wrong.

Which is why for some to claim that the independents are immune from criticism is to lack that critical bent and moral fibre to recognise that even the most sacrosanct of positions seemingly so are liable to question, indeed to criticism.

Plato the Greek philosopher once said that “opinion is the wilderness between ignorance and true knowledge.” To engage issues critically without bias by the contending parties is to emerge from that wilderness and see the light.

DR ERROL N BENJAMIN

via e-mail