When Politics Meets Cancel Culture

Whenever one turns on the television, whether at home or elsewhere, it is common to see politicians participating in talk shows or panel discussions, primarily engaging in personal attacks against their opponents. Such confrontations are often aimed at portraying oneself as the most capable and dedicated leader, eager to serve the nation, while presenting the opponent as utterly unworthy of respect or consideration. Unfortunately, these exchanges rarely introduce constructive agendas or policy proposals; instead, the focus is almost entirely on discrediting rivals. This style of discourse feeds into the broader phenomenon of “cancel culture,” which has gained significant traction on social media. This is happening not only in the developing counties but also in the advanced states of the globe and is promoted mostly by the populist leaders. Be it east or the west, the agenda of undermining one’s opponents is in full swing. This cancel-culture is seeping and spreading not only in politics but also almost every section of society which is rapidly spiraling into increase in street crimes, hate, intolerance and self-aggrandizement. Be it parliament, pressers, media meet, the opponents are derailed instead of debating policy for the public benefit. Politics is being discussed, promoted and popularized but there are no solutions for the issues of the people debated. Where are the politicians whose main aims were to promote people not individuals? 

On these platforms, ordinary users, celebrities, and the media arms of political parties frequently participate in campaigns to highlight and amplify the alleged flaws and shortcomings of their opponents. The original purpose of cancel culture, intended to promote accountability, uphold healthy social values, and encourage constructive discussion about individuals, issues, and institutions, has largely been lost. Instead, it has devolved into a mechanism for personal attacks, fostering hostility, and aggravating societal divisions. Whenever an incident occurs or an individual voices an opinion—particularly on matters of national interest, online discourse often quickly descends into trolling, harassment, and the dissemination of inflammatory content. These reactions generate anger, distrust, and polarization, undermining the democratic spirit that social media was once believed to foster. Political self-promotion now dominates these spaces, overshadowing the possibility of productive dialogue.

While this dynamic may provide short-term satisfaction for certain politicians, both domestically and internationally, it is producing a deep and damaging divide within society. Young people, in particular, are either left confused about which perspectives to trust or become blind followers of partisan rhetoric. Cancel culture, as practiced in televised debates and on social media, has reduced public engagement to the uncritical acceptance of one side’s views while rejecting or ridiculing all others. Ideally, political discourse should focus on substantive agendas, enabling the public to evaluate ideas, policies, and ideologies before forming opinions. Open and respectful debate helps citizens determine whether a proposal is beneficial or harmful. Instead, the current climate fosters personal hostility toward anyone who holds even a slightly different viewpoint, further entrenching social divisions. It is imperative that political actors in our country reassess their approach. Rather than undermining opponents in the harshest possible terms, they should work toward the intellectual and moral development of youth and the overall progress of the nation. Democracy cannot be established, let alone flourish, in an environment characterized by factionalism, segregation, and hostility. Such conditions nurture authoritarian tendencies rather than democratic ones.

Politicians must also recognize the far-reaching consequences of their public statements. Once broadcast or posted online, their words can quickly spread globally, often being edited, reframed, or repurposed to serve narrow, self-interested agendas with little regard for the collective good. If this trend continues unchecked, the long-term result will be a society where mutual antagonism is the norm and national unity becomes impossible. Besides, such unchecked spread of hate for opponents develops a personality focused fellowship instead performance- based fellowship. Consequently, the national and collective benefit is left far behind, and people and individuals gain more ground which ultimately generates an unhealthy trend of democracy.

This is not to say that disagreement should be silenced—healthy debate is essential to democracy. However, political discourse must avoid becoming personal or divisive. Healthy debates are promoted only at that time when such discussions take place, but it does not mean that it should be taken at the personal level and psychologically speaking the politicians should make such speeches or should talk or discuss such things in a way that people are divided. This tendency should be discouraged and instead every politician should come forward to make a nation which is healthier positive debating and is emerging with the best possible view for the benefit of the country and the people. The leaders may discuss their policies and promote their agenda for the national benefit instead of keeping on claiming ‘better than thou’ status. Leaders should strive to cultivate a culture of respectful discussion, critical thinking, and cooperation, with the shared aim of building a positive, forward-looking society for the benefit of all citizens.

The healthy debates are only taking place at that time when such discussions take place but it does not mean that it should be taken at the personal level and psychologically speaking the politicians should make such speeches or should talk or discuss such things in such a way that people are divided that tendency should be discouraged and instead every politician should come for to come forward in order to make a nation which is healthier positive debating and is emerging with a best possible view for the benefit of the country and the people.