Four reasons why those in the healm of govt affairs find it difficult to condemn govt;

1. They get accused of treason and "anti-party activities". This will not only cost their offices (i.e. chance to make a difference) but also mar their political relevance forever.

2. How they got there strips them off their rights to free expression.

Unfortunately most times, lots of oaths, pleas, "maula" and the rest take place before getting an office. How do you expect them to get the moral platform to criticize after all these?

3. They don't really care (anymore).
Although (to be fair) this may not always be the case; but what politicians do to get and keep power (rigging, bribery, thuggery and charms) keeps you wondering if truly the "people's plight" is their driving force.

4. It is usually easier to condemn when you're not involved. When you get there, the narrative often changes.

"Provide security, eliminate poverty, look at Singapore" bruh, it's all easier said than done.

If you've previously held any position (SUG, SRC etc), you'd understand.

This is not to defend anyone's silence, but rather to help us understand its cause.

Diverting the synergetic function of political parties to merely winning elections in lieu of being a philosophical backbone for revamping states, for me, is the birth of our predicament.