Opinion
29 July, 2026
Opinion: Democracy Demands Accountability
The strength of a democracy is measured by how willingly elected representatives answer criticism.
The strength of a democracy is measured by how willingly elected representatives answer criticism.
The essence of Stuart Carless’ article Councillor, Broadcaster Go Head to Head (28 July 2026) is not about who are the administrators of the Highlands Opinion Facebook forum.
Rather, it is whether elected representatives are able to professionally deal with public criticism, or whether the criticism is turned against the person asking the questions.
Democracy relies on accountability. Councillors are entrusted with decision making that affects 54,000 residents. When those decisions are open to scrutiny, and supported by fair and reasonable evidence, democracy is strengthened.
However, democracy breaks down when attention shifts away from answering questions, to attacking the person asking them.
There is no dispute that debate, on any medium, should be grounded in civility, accuracy and respect.
Our democracy rests on freedom of speech. This is one of the main factors that differentiates between a democracy and authoritarianism.
Democracy functions best when those in positions of civic responsibility are answerable to the community they serve.
At times, the questions asked by the community are uncomfortable. Civic life is endless with daily pressures. But this is the price one pays for choosing the responsibilities of civic office.
Carless’ article illustrates how quickly debate can shift from criticism that needs answers, to that of questioning the identity of those asking the questions. In my view, this is diverting attention away from democratic legitimacy.
Historically, anonymous political speech has often served the higher good of a community. Anonymous individuals have spoken to expose wrongdoing, challenge authoritative figures and contribute to public debate without fear of personal or professional consequences.
While anonymity should not excuse false or defamatory statements, neither should it diminish the value of legitimate questions and public commentary.
Australia's legal system has defamation laws to protect reputation. Social media platforms have procedures for reporting inappropriate content. These are safeguards to ensure that public commentary is in accord with democratic legitimacy.
For this reason, it is irrelevant who the Highlands Opinion administrators are. What is of paramount importance is the quality of the material being published on the forum. Is it factual? Is it analytical? Is it meaningful? Does it evoke thinking? Is the grammar correct? Is the message clear or ambiguous? Am I more informed after reading it than I was beforehand?
Whether readers agree or disagree with material published on Highlands Opinion is a personal matter. The fundamental principle is that public commentary should be assessed according to its evidence, reasoning and accuracy, and not on the identity of the person making it.
Academia provides an interesting analogy. Scholars read thousands of articles by authors they have never met.
What matters is not the identity of the author, but solely the quality of the facts, reasoning, analysis and hypothesis presented.
Democracy must never be silenced. Community confidence grows when elected representatives openly answer questions, evidence is presented and there is accountability to the communities they serve. That is the standard our community expects, regardless of who asks the questions.
Dr Raymond Khoury PhD
--------------
Subscribe to The Southern Wire Newsletter for free at the link below.
https://subscribe-forms.beehiiv.com/1986abc6-c89e-4781-9db2-cf35c9dd71e4
If you value independent local journalism across the Highlands, Tablelands and Wollondilly, please click the link below to support us to ensure we remain paywall free.
Read More: Southern Highlands