Assam Election 2026: Ethical politics is essential for social harmony

Heramba Nath

(herambanath2222@gmail.com)

As the Assam Assembly Election 2026 approaches, political activity across the  state is intensifying far earlier than many observers expected. Posters appear sooner, slogans grow louder, alliances begin to shift, and digital campaigns multiply by the day. Elections in a democratic system are meant to be a dignified and structured process in which political parties place their policies, development programmes, and governance records before the people. Citizens, in turn, are expected to evaluate these offerings with reason and responsibility and then make informed choices. Yet alongside this legitimate democratic energy, another disturbing pattern is becoming increasingly visible—the steady growth of unethical political practices, personal attacks, misinformation campaigns, and divisive narratives that threaten the social environment of Assam.

Democracy does not function only through ballots and booths; it functions through behaviour. The tone of political communication, the methods of persuasion, and the moral limits observed during contestation are just as important as manifestos and promises. When political competition abandons ethical restraint, democracy begins to lose its civil character. The concern today is not that political rivalry exists—rivalry is natural and necessary—but that rivalry is increasingly being converted into hostility, distortion, and social fragmentation. This trend deserves careful reflection as the Assam Assembly Election 2026 draws nearer.

Assam is not merely a territorial or administrative unit; it is a culturally layered and socially diverse region where multiple communities live with shared histories, languages, and interdependence. Social relationships in such a landscape are delicate and valuable. Political behaviour in such a society carries additional responsibility because careless words and reckless accusations can travel quickly across community lines. Statements made at campaign rallies, allegations circulated without proof, and provocative digital content can disturb social harmony in ways that are not easily repaired. What begins as political messaging can gradually harden into social suspicion. Neighbours begin to distrust neighbours. Long-standing friendships come under strain. Community conversations become tense. The damage extends far beyond party boundaries and survives long after election results are declared.

In recent years, social media has transformed the nature of electioneering. It has given speed, reach, and emotional intensity to political communication while simultaneously weakening traditional filters of verification and editorial responsibility. As the Assam Assembly Election 2026 approaches, social media platforms are already turning into primary battlegrounds. Instead of reasoned debate, many posts are designed to shock, provoke, or insult. Edited clips, selective quotations, recycled incidents presented as fresh events, and unverified allegations are widely circulated. Supporters of different parties engage in aggressive exchanges that often cross the limits of decency. Falsehood, when repeated frequently and emotionally, begins to appear like truth to the casual reader. Algorithms reward outrage more than accuracy. Sensationalism travels faster than sober analysis. This is not democratic strength; it is democratic erosion unfolding in real time.

Dirty politics is often misunderstood as merely aggressive politics. There is a difference. Strong criticism is not unethical by itself. In a democracy, governments must be questioned, opposition must be challenged, and policies must be debated. Ethical criticism is based on evidence, logic, and relevance. It addresses decisions, performance, and policy outcomes. Dirty politics, by contrast, depends on character assassination, rumour-spreading, emotional manipulation, and identity-based provocation. It attempts to win by lowering the opponent rather than elevating public understanding. It replaces argument with accusation and replaces facts with insinuation. It simplifies complex public issues into emotional slogans and creates villains instead of presenting solutions. Such methods may generate temporary advantage, but they corrode democratic culture from within and make future cooperation in governance more difficult.

The temptation to use unethical tactics grows when elections are seen purely as battles to be won at any cost. When victory becomes the only value, values themselves become expendable. Political parties begin to justify questionable means by pointing to supposedly noble ends. Yet political parties are not private corporations competing for market share; they are public institutions seeking authority over people’s lives, rights, and resources. Their conduct has educational power. It teaches supporters how to behave, how to speak, and how to treat opponents. If parties normalise abuse and distortion, supporters absorb those habits. If parties practise restraint and fairness, supporters learn democratic discipline. The moral example set during the Assam Assembly Election 2026 will influence political culture in the state for years, perhaps decades.

Ethics in politics should be recognised as both a civic duty and a human duty. Political leaders and workers are not separate from society; they are members of it. They are bound by values of truthfulness, fairness, dignity, and responsibility. The language used in campaigns should reflect this moral grounding. Words are not harmless instruments; they shape perception and emotion. When leaders speak responsibly, they elevate public conversation. When they indulge in reckless accusations and personal ridicule, they legitimise similar behaviour among followers. When exaggeration becomes habitual, truth becomes optional. Ethical conduct is therefore not a decorative virtue in politics; it is a stabilising force in democratic life.

A healthy social environment depends upon trust. Trust grows slowly and breaks quickly. Election periods test this trust more than any other democratic exercise. Communities hear conflicting claims, emotional appeals, and alarming predictions. If political actors exploit fear and identity divisions, social trust weakens. Assam’s social fabric — woven from ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural diversity — requires careful handling. Campaign strategies that deliberately divide communities for vote consolidation may deliver short-term arithmetic gains but leave long-term psychological scars. Once division is planted deeply, governance becomes harder because suspicion blocks cooperation between citizens and institutions.

Issue-based politics is the foundation of meaningful democratic choice. The Assam Assembly Election 2026 should ideally revolve around substantive public concerns — employment generation, quality of education, public healthcare delivery, agricultural sustainability, flood and erosion control, infrastructure development, environmental protection, youth migration, border management, industrial growth, and urban planning. These are the areas where policy matters and where government performance can be measured. When elections are issue-centred, voters gain clarity. They compare programmes and performance. They ask practical questions. Governance improves because mandates become policy-driven. When elections become personality-centred mudslinging contests, public understanding declines and governance accountability weakens. Noise replaces knowledge.

Digital misinformation deserves special concern because of its scale and speed. A single misleading post, forwarded thousands of times, can influence perception more powerfully than a detailed policy document read by a few. Deeply edited videos, fabricated quotes, manipulated photographs, and misleading graphics create emotional reactions before rational verification can occur. Repetition produces familiarity, and familiarity is often mistaken for truth. Ordinary citizens do not always have the time or tools to verify each claim. This creates an ethical burden on political parties and campaign managers to avoid deliberate deception. Winning through misinformation is not democratic success; it is democratic betrayal. It distorts consent and weakens the moral basis of electoral victory.

There is also the emerging problem of organised digital propaganda networks that operate with anonymity and coordination. Fake accounts, automated posting patterns, and coordinated abuse campaigns can artificially amplify certain narratives while silencing others. This creates an illusion of majority opinion where none may actually exist. It also intimidates moderate voices who prefer civil discussion. Democracy depends upon genuine public opinion, not manufactured digital noise. Regulation alone cannot solve this problem; political self-restraint and citizen awareness are equally necessary.

Supporters and ordinary citizens carry responsibility as well. Democracy in the digital age has made every mobile phone user a potential publisher and broadcaster. Forwarding an unverified political message is not harmless participation; it contributes to distortion. Engaging in abusive comment exchanges does not strengthen one’s preferred party; it lowers the standard of civic culture. Good citizenship requires restraint, verification, and civility. Disagreement is natural, but dehumanisation is dangerous. One can reject a political position without insulting a person’s dignity. One can criticise a party without condemning an entire community. The discipline of disagreement is a mark of democratic maturity.

Media institutions play a decisive role during election cycles. Their choices of headlines, debate formats, and verification standards shape public perception. Sensational allegations may attract viewership and online traffic, but democracy requires balance, fact-checking, and context. Responsible journalism highlights policy differences, tracks promises versus performance, examines financial claims, and exposes wrongdoing with evidence. Irresponsible amplification of unverified claims turns media into an instrument of manipulation rather than a guardian of public reason. Competitive media markets often create pressure for speed over accuracy. Yet credibility, once lost, is difficult to recover. During the Assam Assembly Election 2026 period, media responsibility will be as important as political responsibility.

The role of educational institutions and intellectual communities is equally significant. Universities, colleges, and schools are not campaign platforms, but they are spaces where critical thinking is cultivated. Encouraging young voters to examine manifestos, compare policy proposals, and question exaggerated claims strengthens democracy. When political polarisation enters classrooms in a destructive manner, learning suffers. When informed debate is encouraged, democratic competence grows. Teachers and scholars can contribute by modelling respectful disagreement and evidence-based reasoning.

Young voters deserve particular attention. Many will participate in the Assam Assembly Election 2026 as first-time voters. The political culture they witness will shape their long-term faith in democratic institutions. If they observe politics dominated by insult, hatred, and deception, they may grow cynical and disengaged. If they observe politics guided by substance, ethics, and respectful debate, they are more likely to become responsible democratic participants. Political parties often speak of youth empowerment; ethical campaigning is one practical and visible way to demonstrate that commitment. Youth do not merely need promises; they need examples.

There is also a governance dimension to ethical campaigning. Leaders who rely heavily on manipulation during elections often struggle to build trust after assuming office. Citizens remain suspicious of motives and announcements. Administrative cooperation becomes more difficult when credibility is weak. By contrast, leaders who campaign with transparency and restraint begin their tenure with stronger moral authority. Public communication becomes more effective because it is believed. Ethical elections therefore contribute indirectly to effective governance and policy implementation.

Civil society organisations, community bodies, and voluntary groups can contribute by promoting voter awareness programmes focused on ethical political engagement. Workshops on identifying misinformation, understanding data claims, reading manifestos, and maintaining respectful dialogue can strengthen democratic resilience. Religious and cultural organisations can remind citizens that moral conduct does not pause during elections. Democracy is not protected only by laws and commissions; it is protected by habits and values practised daily by citizens.

Election authorities and regulatory bodies also have a role in maintaining fairness. Enforcement of expenditure rules, monitoring of campaign communication, and action against hate speech and provable misinformation can create deterrence. Yet regulation alone cannot produce ethical politics. Laws can punish extremes, but they cannot create virtue. Ethical political culture grows when parties voluntarily accept moral limits and when voters reward integrity instead of theatrics.

The Assam Assembly Election 2026 presents not only a political choice but also a moral test. It tests whether political actors can compete without corroding social harmony. It tests whether supporters can remain loyal without becoming hostile. It tests whether citizens can remain critical without becoming cynical. Ethical political conduct does not weaken competition; it strengthens legitimacy. Victory achieved through ethical campaigning produces durable public trust. Victory achieved through manipulation produces fragile authority and continuous suspicion.

The coming election season can become an opportunity to renew democratic values rather than abandon them. Political parties can commit publicly to ethical campaigning standards and internal codes of conduct. Leaders can moderate their language and correct false claims made by their own supporters. Campaign teams can verify their data before circulation. Supporters can refuse to spread unverified allegations even when they favour their preferred side. Citizens can demand issue-based debate and reject divisive appeals. Ethical politics is not merely a strategic option; it is a civic responsibility and a human obligation towards society, social harmony, and future generations.