YVONNE'S TAKE: Argue, but lead!

For anyone scrolling through social media this week, here's a small challenge.
Read a few posts. Don't look at the names. Just read the words.

One post accuses a media house of extortion and gangsterism. Another warns of state-sponsored killer squads. A third responds with threats of "dire consequences."

Now ask yourself this: Could you tell which of those posts came from the President? Which one from a Cabinet Secretary? Which from a former Deputy President?

Or would you assume they were all written by anonymous accounts chasing outrage and engagement?

Somewhere along the way, our leaders stopped communicating like statesmen and started posting like influencers in a never-ending online feud.

Because leadership is communicated not just through decisions, but through language.

Not because leaders should speak in polished diplomatic clichés while the country burns. Passion has its place. Disagreement is healthy. Robust political debate is essential in any democracy.

But there is a difference between robust disagreement and perpetual provocation.

There is a difference between accountability and antagonism.

And there is certainly a difference between political leadership and performative online combat.

Social media rewards the quickest insult, the sharpest clapback, the most outrageous accusation. The algorithms don't reward nuance; they reward engagement. Outrage travels faster than reason.

The problem is that our leaders seem to have accepted those rules.

The line between governing and content creation is becoming dangerously blurred.

And if those occupying the highest offices in the land begin speaking exactly like the loudest voices in the comment section, who then sets the standard?

Who demonstrates that authority is measured not by volume, but by judgment?

If leaders abandon civility, why should anyone else preserve it?

Perhaps this explains why our public discourse feels increasingly angry, increasingly suspicious, increasingly impossible.

We've normalized a politics in which every conversation must end with humiliation rather than persuasion.

It also expects something in return: dignity, integrity and leadership worthy of public trust.

Perhaps it's time we expected those values not only in the decisions they make, but also in the words they choose.

Public trust is built as much by the language leaders use as by the policies they announce. When every message sounds like a political brawl, even serious governance begins to look like just another social media contest.

Because if we can no longer distinguish the voice of a Head of State, a Cabinet Secretary or a former Deputy President from that of an anonymous account chasing the next viral moment, then we have lowered the office long before we've elevated the conversation.