WHEN IDENTITY REPLACES RESULTS
Sometimes politics gets turned upside down.
Those who should be talking about what they accomplished while in power begin, when elections approach, to remind people who they are:
“Are you one of us?”
“Do you share our faith?”
“Are you one of our people?”
“Are you on our side?”
Because achievements can be examined.
How many schools were built?
How many young people found jobs?
Where does the economy stand?
What is the state of education?
Has public trust in the institutions of justice increased?
Has merit been protected in public appointments?
All of these questions can be asked, measured, and compared.
Identity is much easier to invoke.
When, instead of explaining what you have accomplished, you remind people who they are, you change the direction of the debate.
Religion, sect, nationality, ethnic origin, homeland, and the flag are, of course, values that matter deeply to many people. But when these values are used to generate political loyalty, they can make the actual results of government harder to see.
Governing a country, however, is about more than appealing to people's emotions.
Governing means producing results.
The measure of a government's performance is not how much excitement it creates, but what it changes in people's lives.
Are people receiving a better education?
Can they provide a safer future for their children?
Can a young person find a job without having to rely on connections?
Do citizens trust public institutions to treat them fairly?
Are public positions given to those who are best connected, or to those who are most qualified?
These are far more important questions than a politician's identity.
Being religious does not, by itself, make someone a good leader.
Neither does being a nationalist.
Being conservative, social democratic, liberal, or holding any other political view is not enough on its own.
Identity is one thing; merit is another.
Faith is one thing; the ability to govern is another.
Belonging is one thing; accountability is another.
The problem is not that identities exist. The problem is when identities are placed in the position of performance.
That is when citizens cease to act as citizens and become supporters.
And supporters often do not want to see their team's mistakes.
But democracy is not about rooting for a team.
Democracy means being able to tell even a politician you support, when necessary, “What you are doing is not right.”
The ballot box is not a test of identity; it is where political accountability is decided.
That is why the question voters should ask at election time is simple:
“What did you promise us, and what did you accomplish?”
If there are achievements from your time in office, show them.
If there are successes, demonstrate them.
If there are shortcomings, acknowledge them.
If there are mistakes, correct them.
But if you continually replace your record with religion, sect, nationality, homeland, or some other identity, citizens have every right to ask:
“All of these may be valuable. But what did you actually accomplish while governing the country?”
Because countries are not governed by identities; they are governed by institutions.
Economies are not shaped by slogans, but by sound policies.
Education is improved not by belonging, but by quality.
Justice is sustained not by rhetoric, but by independent and trustworthy institutions.
And democracy is kept alive not by blind loyalty, but by citizens who are willing to demand accountability.
It is not the government's job to keep asking citizens, “Are you one of us?”
The question should be reversed:
“What have you done for us?”
Because words spoken during election season may be forgotten.
But the consequences of your actions in people's lives are not so easily forgotten.
Good government does not ask for your identity; it answers for its record.