Like the little boy who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes, opinions voiced against any political consensus can leave the person responsible uncomfortable and unpopular, yet ultimately they are vital to any democracy.
Amid the general political euphoria surrounding the IRA announcement on decommissioning, I have in recent days found myself in such a position.
For some nationalists this will simply reinforce their caricature of anti-agreement unionists as pantomime villains, but it is important for people to realise that scepticism over recent events is both justified and widespread within the unionist community.
Decommissioning, I believe, has never been about getting our pound of flesh from the Provos but rather represents a mix of high principle and reasoned pragmatism.
The principle is the belief that democrats should not be asked to share power with those who still retain the option of using violence to further their aims, and maintain a private army at their beck and call.
This principle is not something peculiar to Northern Ireland, but rather reflects the norm elsewhere in the democratic world.
Indeed parties in the Irish Republic have been rightly resistant to the idea of Sinn FΘin as potential coalition partners until they rid themselves of their private army and arsenal.
The practical aspect to decommissioning is an attempt to protect the community in the North from the sort of violence and terror that has been all too prevalent in our history.
Some say terrorism will not disappear overnight, but we are now more than seven years on since republicans and loyalists declared their ceasefires and still we wake up to punishment beatings, pipe bombings and occasional murders.
Turning a blind eye to these activities has not solved the problem.
Too many still live in fear of the gun.
This is the context against which recent events must be judged.
Any organisation making a purely cosmetic gesture on decommissioning, but retaining both the capability to inflict terror and the intention to use violence when it suits it, is no less of a threat to law-abiding citizens and no more acceptable as a partner in government.
The key test is, therefore, the intention of paramilitary organisations to progress towards complete disarmament and eventual disbandment of their structures. Given their record, it is not surprising that many unionists are cynical about IRA intentions, with the litany of lies told about Columbia merely adding fuel to these fears.
Many would say that the IRA has acted not as part of a logical progression towards a solely democratic path, but rather as a means to attempt to get itself off the hook of international and particularly American opinion in the wake of the events of September 11th.
A one-off cynical gesture does not in the long run build either political stability or secure peace. People have a right to know, therefore, whether this is simply a one-off gesture or the start of a process leading to complete disarmament.
Democrats are entitled to have some assurances on this issue before they compromise their principles. Decommissioning was also meant to build public confidence in the process, but it has been undermined rather than fortified given the way the issue has been handled.
The unionist community already feels let down and conned by the failure of the Prime Minister to deliver on his pre-referendum pledges, and it is wary of being taken in by what it fears is a trick with smoke and mirrors.
I understand that the international decommissioning commission feels bound by confidentiality, but the details released so far only give vagueness a bad name.
I believe that the people of Northern Ireland have a right to know what happened and I am surely not the only person who wishes to make a judgment on whether real or sufficient progress has been achieved on the basis of objective facts rather than other people's opinions.
Concern continues to grow regarding the price paid for decommissioning.
Government announcements on demilitarisation are felt by many to be premature, leaving law-abiding citizens in many areas even more vulnerable to the paramilitaries.
The transparent public dismantling of army posts grates with people when contrasted against the secrecy of any decommissioning event.
Similarly the idea of a complete amnesty for all terrorist offences before 1998 is repugnant.
Those most suspicious fear the full price for decommissioning has not been revealed by government, and that even more concessions are on the way.
These are the concerns that make me hesitant before giving my backing to a restoration of government. I believe they are reasonable, and the key to addressing them lies with the IRA, the decommissioning commission and the British government.
Their ability to meet these genuine concerns in the run-up to today's decision will be the key determinant in how myself and others will vote, and whether Northern Ireland is on the verge of a bright tomorrow or a false dawn.
Peter Weir MLA is Ulster Unionist Party representative for North Down