By Sheriff Musa Sheriff
As The Gambia edges closer to the 2026 presidential election, political discourse is increasingly overshadowed by a rising tide of personal attacks, online abuse, and character assassination. What should ideally be a season of competing ideas, policy alternatives, and national vision has, instead, become a battleground of insults, misinformation, and emotionally charged exchanges that risk eroding the foundations of democratic engagement.
Across political platforms, particularly on social media, analysts and citizens alike are observing a troubling shift: the gradual replacement of manifesto-driven debate with personality-driven hostility. Rather than engaging with policy proposals or governance records, political actors and their supporters are increasingly drawn into exchanges that target individual character, private lives, and personal reputation.
This phenomenon, often described as the “politics of insult,” is not unique to The Gambia. However, its growing intensity in the Gambian political space raises urgent questions about democratic maturity, civic responsibility, and the future of political competition in a young democracy still consolidating its post-authoritarian identity.
From ideas to insults: a changing political culture
In an ideal democratic setting, elections serve as a marketplace of ideas where political parties present competing visions for national development. Yet, in recent months, political observers note a decline in structured policy debate across major platforms. Instead, online discussions and public rallies are frequently dominated by personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric.
Social media, once celebrated as a tool for democratic participation and civic empowerment, has become a primary channel for political hostility. Posts and commentaries often focus less on party manifestos and more on insulting opponents, spreading unverified claims, or questioning personal integrity.
This trend, analysts argue, reflects a deeper problem: the weakening of ideological differentiation between political actors. When parties fail to clearly articulate policy alternatives, political competition tends to shift from ideas to individuals.
The strategic use of character assassination
Political communication experts describe character assassination as a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining an opponent’s credibility rather than engaging their ideas. It is not limited to isolated insults but often involves sustained efforts to shape public perception negatively over time.
As noted in political communication literature, character assassination is a long-term process that relies on repetition, emotional appeal, and selective framing of personal traits. Unlike policy criticism, which evaluates performance or decisions, it targets identity—focusing on personality, morality, family background, or private behaviour.
In electoral politics, such strategies are often deployed to weaken an opponent’s public standing by shifting attention away from governance issues. When successful, they can significantly influence voter perceptions, particularly in highly polarised environments.
However, scholars caution that the effectiveness of such tactics depends largely on audience perception. If the electorate views the attacks as unjustified or exaggerated, they may backfire and strengthen sympathy for the targeted individual.
Social media and the amplification of hostility
The rise of digital platforms has fundamentally transformed political communication in The Gambia. While these platforms have expanded access to information and political participation, they have also lowered the threshold for public discourse.
Unverified claims, doctored content, and inflammatory commentary now circulate rapidly, often outpacing fact-checking mechanisms. Political supporters, rather than engaging in structured debate, frequently participate in what critics describe as “digital mob politics,” where group loyalty overrides critical reasoning.
The consequences of this shift are increasingly visible. Political disagreements that should remain issue-based are often personalised, escalating tensions between supporters of different parties. In some cases, online exchanges spill into offline hostility, deepening social divisions.
Civil society actors warn that if unchecked, this trajectory could undermine public trust in democratic institutions and discourage constructive political participation, particularly among young people.
The cost of insult politics to democratic development
The politics of insult carries significant implications for democratic consolidation. First, it obscures substantive issues. When political attention is dominated by personal attacks, critical national challenges such as unemployment, education reform, healthcare delivery, and economic diversification are pushed to the margins of public debate.
Second, it discourages capable individuals from entering politics. Public service becomes less attractive when political engagement is associated with reputational risk, personal humiliation, or sustained online harassment. This reduces the pool of qualified candidates willing to contribute to governance.
Third, it polarises society. When political discourse is framed in terms of personal loyalty or hostility, citizens become divided not by policy preferences but by emotional allegiance. Over time, this weakens social cohesion and erodes the culture of respectful disagreement.
Fourth, it undermines accountability. Genuine criticism of governance performance is essential in a democracy. However, when criticism is replaced by insult, it becomes difficult for citizens to distinguish between legitimate scrutiny and politically motivated defamation.
Governance, responsibility and political leadership
Political leaders bear significant responsibility in shaping the tone of public discourse. Their language, behaviour, and communication strategies often set the standard for their supporters.
In contexts where leaders prioritise policy articulation and issue-based debate, political discourse tends to be more constructive. Conversely, when leaders engage in or tolerate personal attacks, such behaviour often cascades down to supporters, intensifying political hostility at the grassroots level.
Observers argue that The Gambia’s political class must now confront a critical question: whether to continue tolerating a politics defined by emotional confrontation or to actively promote a culture of respectful competition grounded in ideas.
The electorate’s role in reshaping political norms
While political actors play a central role, the electorate also holds significant power in shaping political culture. Voters ultimately determine which forms of political communication are rewarded or rejected.
When electorates prioritise policy substance over personality attacks, political actors are incentivised to focus on governance proposals rather than personal disputes. Conversely, when insult-driven narratives dominate voter attention, political actors adapt accordingly.
This dynamic places responsibility on citizens, civil society organisations, media practitioners, and community leaders to promote political literacy and encourage critical evaluation of political messaging.
Towards a more constructive political future
The challenge facing The Gambia is not merely the presence of political disagreement, but the manner in which that disagreement is expressed. Democracy thrives not on the absence of conflict, but on the presence of structured, respectful, and issue-based contestation.
Reversing the current trend will require deliberate effort. Political parties must strengthen internal communication strategies that prioritise manifesto development and policy articulation. Media institutions must reinforce ethical standards in political reporting and commentary. Educational and civic programmes must continue to build awareness around responsible political engagement.
Most importantly, political actors themselves must recognise that long-term democratic credibility cannot be built on the erosion of others. A political system sustained by insult rather than ideas risks becoming unstable, unpredictable, and ultimately unproductive.
Conclusion: beyond the empty vessel
The metaphor of the “empty vessel” captures a growing concern in Gambian politics: that the loudest voices are not necessarily those with the most substance. As the country moves closer to a decisive electoral moment, the choice before political actors and citizens is clear.
One path leads toward deeper polarisation, where politics becomes a cycle of accusations and counter-accusations. The other leads toward democratic maturity, where disagreement is expressed through ideas, policies, and respectful engagement.
The future of Gambian democracy may well depend on which of these paths is chosen—not by politicians alone, but by the collective choices of an increasingly politically aware society.
About the Author
