Criticism of the government from someone who has experience running a large bureaucracy, negotiating, balancing groups with competing interests et cetera will rightly, other things equal, be taken more seriously than from someone whose experience of politics doesn't extend past ranting on Twitter.
Of course, other things may not be equal. If the latter person has sufficiently convincing arguments, can back them up with reference to sufficiently solid evidence, then these things may carry the point on their own merit.
Government criticism from people who have experience with running government or being in the politics tend to have much higher quality then criticism coming from sixteen years old high school class president.
So when it comes to the highest level of government, only those who have reached such heights may say a peep. Only criticism from former US presidents regarding Trump, please!
When random dude possibly with asperger gives advice/criticism on how to negotiate, reasonable government official will igore him - even if the criticism came in form of a blog. Likewise, succesfull activists ignore armchair advice from people on anonymous twitter. Not sure how is that controversial. Torwalds does not spend his time worrying about whether random bloggers agree with linux core style guide.
You did not demonstrated enough of knowledge/expeciance for me to take your criticism seriously is valid answer.
Criticism against governments by former governors should and is taken more seriously than criticism by some joe who's never had to wrangle a bureaucracy.
