When supporters become bullies: the ugly side of student elections

How insults, mockery, and personal attacks are replacing intellectual debate in student politics Elections are meant to be a celebration of democracy, a period for sharing ideas, presenting visions, and choosing leaders based on merit. However, in recent times, the conduct of some supporters has increasingly overshadowed the democratic process itself. Instead of promoting their candidates based on policies, competence, and vision, some supporters resort to insults, mockery, and personal attacks against opposing candidates. Social media platforms, campaign grounds, and even academic spaces have become breeding grounds for hostility rather than platforms for healthy political discourse. Having closely observed student politics, I've realized that many students are not prepared to engage in intellectual conversations. Instead, they appear more interested in confrontation and heated arguments. While some claim this behaviour is all "for fun," it's difficult to find humour in situations where individuals are mocked for their physical appearance, down to their shoes and suits. What is even more concerning is that many of these harsh criticisms are delivered from a distance. A significant number of those who boldly insult and ridicule candidates online or among peers often lack the courage to express the same opinions directly to the individuals involved. This culture of indirect criticism not only reflects a lack of accountability but also fuels a cycle of disrespect that thrives on anonymity and avoidance. At times, I find myself imagining the reactions of these candidates when they encounter such comments. Behind every poster and campaign message is a human being, one who is not immune to the impact of harsh words and public ridicule. Yes, it is politics, and often, we say politics has no room for emotions, but that should not be an excuse for enmity. Disagreement is inevitable, but it should never descend into personal attacks. What our student political space desperately needs is constructive criticism, not character assassination. This growing trend raises an important question: Are we truly supporting our candidates, or are we simply attacking others? Support should not translate into disrespect. True loyalty to a candidate is demonstrated through the ability to articulate their strengths and policies, not by tearing others down. When supporters engage in toxic behaviour, it not only damages the image of their preferred candidate but also discourages meaningful participation from others who may fear being targeted or ridiculed. Moreover, such behaviour shifts the focus away from critical issues that matter to the student body. Instead of discussing policies on education, student welfare, or development, conversations become centered on personalities and conflicts. This significantly weakens the quality of leadership selection and undermines the very purpose of elections. It is also important to recognize that the tone set by supporters often reflects, rightly or wrongly, on the candidates themselves. Candidates who fail to address or discourage such behaviour risk are perceived as endorsing it. As students and active participants in this democratic process, we must strive to promote a culture of respect, tolerance, and constructive dialogue. Elections should be about ideas, not insults; about progress, not pettiness. In the end, the true mark of political maturity is not just in how we support those we believe in but in how we respect those with whom we disagree.