In a democratic society, freedom of expression is considered one of the fundamental pillars of public life. However, when this freedom is exercised by individuals who occupy high-ranking positions in government or public institutions, several serious questions arise about what is appropriate and what is not. One such question is whether it is proper for a person in a senior role, who is politically appointed, to use their position to write against or attack the opposition party. In this context, there are strong arguments against such a practice.

First and foremost, a person appointed to public office-even if they are a political appointee-still carries a responsibility toward the entire public, not just the political party that appointed them. Public office brings with it an obligation of impartiality and a duty to serve the common good. When such an individual uses their platform to criticize or attack the opposition in a partisan manner, it weakens public trust in institutions. This is because the institution begins to appear as a political tool rather than a public service.

Unfortunately, I see this repeatedly from a small number of individuals. But I feel it most strongly-almost to a personal level-when it comes from people holding positions within the social sector. On the other hand, I also know individuals in this field whose political affiliation may be clear, yet they maintain their professionalism and never engage in such behavior publicly.

Secondly, there is a clear distinction between personal opinion and institutional responsibility. Every citizen has the right to express their views, but when one occupies a senior position, their words no longer remain merely personal opinions. The public is likely to interpret any statement as a reflection of the institution or government they represent. Therefore, even if the intention is to speak as an individual, their role makes this extremely difficult in practice. This leads to confusion and can create unnecessary tension within the political climate.

Many workers speak to me about this, saying they do not feel comfortable and are almost fearful in their workplace. It is not the first time I have invited someone to a book launch - not a political activity - and they tell me they are afraid to be seen there because of their job. Should this be the reality in a developed and democratic country?

Then there are those who were subtly targeted simply because they attended a conference on Social Justice. Yes - not one person, not two... Regardless of where it comes from, this should never happen.

Furthermore, using public office to engage in partisan polemics can be seen as an abuse of power. Such individuals benefit from visibility, resources, or influence that are not available to the general public. This creates an imbalance in democratic debate, where the voice of the opposition may be diminished or overshadowed by those with greater access and power. In a healthy democracy, there should be as level a playing field as possible, where different ideas can be considered fairly.

Another argument against this practice is that it contributes to an excessively polarized climate. When public officials take on an active role in political attacks, public discourse becomes more aggressive and less constructive. Instead of promoting dialogue and collaboration, these actions deepen divisions between political sides. This harms not only politics but society as a whole, as citizens begin to lose trust in the democratic process.

Naturally, some may argue that a political appointee owes loyalty to the government or party that appointed them, and therefore has the right to defend its policies and criticize the opposition. However, even if such loyalty exists, it should be tempered by a sense of responsibility and prudence. Defending policy can be done in a professional and respectful manner, without resorting to direct attacks or polemics that lower the level of public discourse.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether a person has political opinions-because everyone does - but how and where they choose to express them. When one holds a senior position, there is an expectation to act with a certain level of maturity and impartiality. This does not mean remaining silent, but being aware of the impact of one's words and the weight carried by their position.

For these reasons, one may conclude that it is not appropriate for a person holding a high-ranking position, and who is a political appointee, to use their role to attack the opposition party. Such behaviour can damage public trust, weaken institutions, and contribute to a more toxic political climate. In a society that aspires to good governance and respect for democratic principles, these are factors that cannot be ignored.