Power has a strange way of changing people's positions without necessarily changing their principles. Those who condemn authority while sitting in opposition sometimes find themselves defending the same actions when they occupy the chair of power. The language changes, the arguments are repackaged, but the underlying political game often remains the same.

Consider a simple story involving A, B and C.

When A was in power, B and C accused A of abusing authority. They questioned decisions, criticised the administration and presented themselves as defenders of accountability.

Years earlier, when B was in power, A and C had joined hands to make similar accusations against B. The arguments were familiar: misuse of authority, political favouritism and a failure to uphold public interest.

Later, A and C came together to form the government. This time, B became the accuser, alleging that the new alliance was abusing its power.

The cast had changed, but the script had not.

This is the vicious circle of power. Political actors frequently change sides, alliances shift, and yesterday's accusations become tomorrow's justifications. The distinction between right and wrong can become blurred when political convenience begins to determine how actions are judged.

When Opposition Becomes a Position

In a democracy, questioning the government is not merely legitimate; it is essential. Opposition parties, journalists, civil society groups and ordinary citizens must be able to challenge decisions and demand explanations from those in authority.

The problem arises when criticism becomes selective.

An action condemned as authoritarian under one government may suddenly be described as necessary administration when undertaken by another. A policy criticised as politically motivated may become acceptable when it benefits a different group. The standards of accountability begin to move with the balance of power.

This creates a serious credibility problem. If the same action is judged differently depending on who performs it, then the debate is no longer entirely about principles. It may also be about political advantage.

Of course, not every change in position is hypocrisy. Circumstances differ, new evidence emerges, and governments may face different challenges. But when explanations are absent, and standards change conveniently, the public has every reason to ask questions.

The Opportunity Within the Conflict

Every political confrontation creates a space for people outside the immediate contest.

Let us call them X, Y and Z.

They may not be central to the struggle between A, B and C, but they recognise that conflict attracts attention. They begin positioning themselves as activists, public commentators or champions of particular causes. Their voices grow louder as political tensions rise.

There is nothing inherently wrong with activism. In fact, a healthy democracy depends on people who raise uncomfortable questions, expose wrongdoing and speak for communities whose concerns might otherwise be ignored.

The distinction lies in the purpose and consistency of their actions.

Does an activist question every government when credible allegations arise, or only the government that offers the greatest opportunity for visibility? Does the campaign continue when political attention fades? Is the objective to seek a resolution, or simply to keep the controversy alive?

These questions do not automatically establish anyone's motives. They provide a reasonable basis for evaluating public conduct.

An individual's claim to activism should not exempt that person from scrutiny. Just as governments must be accountable, those who seek public influence in the name of accountability should be prepared to explain their methods, evidence, and objectives.

The Business of Outrage

In the digital age, controversy can become a powerful source of attention. A sharp accusation may travel further than a detailed investigation. An emotional statement may attract more engagement than a careful explanation of the facts.

This environment can reward confrontation over resolution.

When public attention becomes the primary measure of success, there is a risk that complex issues will be reduced to convenient narratives. Every disagreement becomes a scandal, every administrative decision becomes a political battle, and every opponent becomes an enemy.

But outrage alone does not establish wrongdoing. Allegations require evidence, criticism requires context, and accountability requires a willingness to examine facts even when they challenge one's preferred position.

The same standard must apply to politicians, activists, commentators and institutions.

Otherwise, the public debate becomes a competition over who can make the strongest accusation rather than who can offer the most credible explanation or practical solution.

The People Left Outside the Circle

While A, B and C argue over who misused power, and X, Y and Z compete for attention, ordinary citizens often remain concerned with more immediate questions.

Are roads being built? Are schools functioning properly? Is healthcare accessible? Are employment opportunities improving? Are public funds being used responsibly? Are citizens able to obtain answers when government services fail?

These are the questions that give political accountability its real meaning.

Democracy cannot be reduced to the exchange of accusations between political rivals. Its purpose is to ensure that power is exercised responsibly and that public institutions serve the people.

Citizens therefore need to look beyond the identity of the accuser and the accused. They must examine evidence, compare claims with actions, and judge public representatives by consistent standards.

A government should not be considered right simply because it enjoys popular support. Nor should every allegation against it be accepted simply because the allegation comes from the opposition. Both power and criticism must remain open to scrutiny.

Breaking the Cycle

The vicious circle of power continues when political loyalty becomes more important than principle.

Breaking it requires more than replacing one political party with another. It requires a culture in which the same rules apply regardless of who holds office, where genuine criticism is distinguished from manufactured controversy, and where public service is measured by outcomes rather than slogans.

For politicians, this means accepting scrutiny even when it is uncomfortable. For activists, it means standing by principles even when doing so is inconvenient. For the media, it means examining claims rather than merely amplifying them. For citizens, it means resisting the temptation to judge every issue through the lens of political allegiance.

Ultimately, the most important question is not whether A, B or C is in power. It is whether those exercising authority are accountable, whether those challenging them are acting consistently, and whether the public interest remains at the centre of the debate.

The chair of power will change hands again. New alliances will emerge, old rivals may become partners, and familiar accusations will return in new forms.

The cycle will continue as long as people judge the use of power by who holds it rather than by how it is exercised.

Because in a democracy, the real test of principle is not how fiercely we question our opponents, but whether we are willing to ask the same difficult questions of our own side.