One of the most widely discussed issues in our society today is the erosion of values in the socio-political sphere. Public discourse, which was once anchored in mutual respect and high cultural standards, is increasingly transforming into a stage for insults, hate speech, and personal attacks.
The sheer crudeness of the language used against one another is deeply concerning. Countless defamatory and vulgar reels are created daily, tarnishing the reputation of even the most respectable individuals. Those who propagate this toxicity often fail to realise that the next generation is growing up watching it, and little attention is paid to the values these youngsters absorb.
Ideological differences between groups or political parties are natural and, in fact, essential for a healthy democracy. However, these disagreements today often degenerate into personal mudslinging. The language and hostility displayed in televised debates and on social media have become increasingly difficult for many citizens to tolerate. Public service is ideally meant to be a form of social commitment. Yet, given the intensity of competition for positions of authority, many ordinary citizens are left wondering whether the primary motivation is public welfare, personal ambition, or a combination of both.
Many observers argue that the intense competition to remain in positions of public authority is often influenced not only by a desire to serve society and gain public recognition but also by the financial benefits, privileges, and influence associated with such roles. One possible way to address this concern is to rationalise the remuneration, allowances, and other benefits available to public workers, particularly those holding positions of significant authority and decision-making power. In addition, regular and independent financial audits, coupled with complete transparency regarding assets and sources of income, can strengthen public trust and accountability. Such measures would help ensure that public service remains focused on the welfare of society rather than personal gain, while reducing incentives that can make the pursuit of power excessively competitive. They could also encourage more dignified public discourse, including television debates, thereby contributing to a healthier democratic culture. Citizens have every right to ask why ideological disagreements cannot be addressed through constructive debate rather than personal attacks and character assassination.
With the rise of visual media and social networks, human life has increasingly become centred around screens. If the obsession with monetary gain is allowed to dominate, technologies that could otherwise be immensely beneficial risk being corrupted by content filled with hatred, abuse, and division. In the pursuit of reach and revenue, some media outlets and content creators mislead the public through misinformation, sensationalism, and the deliberate promotion of conflict. Private matters such as domestic disputes, blatant objectification, and highly sensationalised content are often amplified to create overnight celebrities and generate attention.
In many cases, commercial gain becomes the primary objective.
Men and women who engage in this must realise that superficial validation and public exhibition alone do not define a meaningful life. A similar trend can be observed in segments of the cinema and fashion industries. Cinema, which has the potential to be a powerful expression of art and human creativity, reaches its highest form when artistic integrity takes precedence over purely commercial formulas. It is then that the true brilliance of directors, writers, and performers can enrich society with meaningful ideas and experiences. Likewise, the growing trend of hyper- commercialized fashion designed primarily to maximise profit rather than promote creativity, practicality, or cultural value reflects a broader concern about the influence of commercialisation on social values.
The future of any society depends on the thoughts, behaviour, and physical and mental development of its younger generation. Children and youth do not learn life values solely from books; they absorb them from what they see and hear around them every day. The examples they witness at home, in schools, in the media, on political platforms, and across social networks leave lasting impressions on their minds. They may grow up believing that victory justifies any language, that power is synonymous with aggression, that those with differing opinions are enemies, and that success is measured solely by wealth, regardless of how it is acquired.
Driven by digital algorithms designed to capture attention and generate revenue, young people are increasingly at risk of losing the ability to handle disagreements in a civilised manner. This weakens one of the essential foundations of democracy. The growing fragmentation of community bonds, strained family relationships, and unhealthy lifestyle patterns among many young people are not isolated developments; they are often reflections of the broader social environment they experience. We must not overlook the reality that adults play a significant role in shaping the world that younger generations inherit.
There is no simple answer to the question of who is responsible for this state of affairs. The older generation, public leaders, media organisations, educational institutions, and citizens themselves all share a measure of responsibility. While freedom of expression is undoubtedly a cornerstone of democracy, freedom must be accompanied by responsibility. The right to free speech should not become a license to humiliate others, spread hatred, or circulate misinformation. The decline of social standards cannot be justified merely by the financial gains of a few individuals or platforms.
To counter these trends, stronger legal action against hate speech, defamation, and deliberate misinformation may be necessary, while carefully safeguarding legitimate freedom of expression. Social media companies should also be encouraged to take greater social responsibility rather than focusing exclusively on profit. If systems that reward content solely on the basis of views and engagement are reformed to discourage toxic material, the incentive to create and consume harmful content may gradually decline.
Simultaneously, meaningful reforms are required in education. Digital literacy should become an essential part of school curricula. Children must learn how to navigate social media responsibly,
identify misinformation, evaluate sources critically, and respect differing viewpoints. Beyond institutional reforms, parents and elders must lead by example, demonstrating kindness, integrity, and compassion in everyday life. Citizens must also move beyond personality cults and blind partisan loyalties, choosing instead to evaluate leaders based on principles, policies, and character. The public has the power to reject toxic content and support dignified dialogue and constructive ideas.
Even while acknowledging these concerns, it is important to remember that not all politicians, media organisations, or content creators contribute to the problem. Many continue to act responsibly and uphold high standards of public conduct. Unfortunately, voices of aggression and sensationalism often attract greater attention. The culture of a nation is not measured merely by its infrastructure or technological achievements; it is reflected in how people speak to one another, how they handle disagreements, and how they uphold mutual respect.
Therefore, the greatest need of the hour is not merely economic progress, but a broader social and ethical renewal. Politics devoid of dignity will eventually erode the culture of society itself.
However, if responsible citizens, ethical leaders, accountable institutions, and a vigilant media work together, society can move beyond this period of decline and build a future rooted in dignity, respect, responsibility, and shared human values.