Democracy becomes weaker when political parties expect loyalty to outweigh accountability. That is why Prime Minister Gilmar Pisas is mistaken in criticizing MFK Member of Parliament Javier Silvania for being "dualistic" because he publicly questions ministers from his own party.
If anything, Silvania is doing precisely what a Member of Parliament is elected to do.
We have not always agreed with Javier Silvania. During his time as Minister of Finance, we criticized several of his decisions and policies. We did not hesitate to hold him accountable then, and we would do so again if necessary.
But politics is not about permanent allies or permanent opponents. It is about recognizing good governance when we see it.
Today, Javier Silvania has become one of the most active and effective members of Parliament—not because he blindly supports the government, but because he asks difficult questions, regardless of which party occupies the ministerial offices.
That is exactly how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.
Too often, members of governing parties fall into the role of political cheerleaders. Every proposal is applauded. Every minister is defended. Every criticism is dismissed as opposition politics. Parliament then risks becoming little more than a rubber stamp for the executive.
That is not the role envisioned in our constitutional system.
Members of Parliament are not elected to protect ministers. They are elected to represent the people.
Silvania appears to understand that distinction.
In recent weeks alone, he has questioned ministers about the implementation of the Bion Law, financial difficulties facing police officers, subsidies for elderly care home Nos Welita, and several other issues directly affecting ordinary citizens.
Whether one agrees with every question he asks is beside the point.
The point is that someone is asking.
Prime Minister Pisas argues that these concerns should first be discussed internally within MFK before being raised publicly.
Certainly, political parties should have internal discussions. Every party does. But Parliament is not an internal party meeting. It is a public institution.
Government accountability cannot depend on what is discussed behind closed doors.
When citizens elect a Member of Parliament, they do not elect an extension of the Cabinet. They elect an independent representative whose primary responsibility is to scrutinize government policy, demand answers and ensure public money is spent wisely.
That responsibility does not disappear simply because the MP belongs to the governing party.
In fact, oversight from within the governing coalition often carries greater credibility than criticism from the opposition. It demonstrates that accountability is not driven by politics alone but by principle.
No government should fear questions.
Good ministers welcome scrutiny because it gives them an opportunity to explain their policies, correct mistakes and improve performance.
Strong governments do not become weaker because Parliament asks questions. They become stronger.
If every governing party MP simply voted yes, remained silent and defended every government decision, Parliament would lose one of its essential constitutional functions.
There is another important point.
Many of the issues Silvania raises do not come from political strategy. They come from citizens.
Police officers approached him about overtime taxation and financial hardship. Elderly care providers sought his help when subsidies were reduced. Workers, public servants and community organizations continue to bring their concerns to him.
That is representative democracy in practice.
An MP who listens to citizens and transforms their concerns into parliamentary questions is fulfilling his mandate.
Could some matters be discussed internally first? Perhaps.
But requiring internal party approval before raising public concerns creates a dangerous precedent. It suggests that party discipline should take priority over public accountability.
It should be the other way around.
History shows that governments rarely improve when everyone inside the governing party remains silent.
Progress often begins when someone is willing to ask uncomfortable questions.
Javier Silvania should continue doing exactly that.
He should continue questioning ministers.
He should continue examining government spending.
He should continue listening to citizens.
He should continue holding ministries accountable.
Not because he opposes MFK.
But because he represents the people who elected him.
That is not dualism.
That is democracy.