In today’s digital age, social media has become a powerful platform for political discourse, but it has also become a breeding ground for unproductive criticism and character assassination. This is particularly evident in the way many young people have chosen to engage with Dr. Bol Mel’s leadership. As we navigate the complexities of our political landscape, it is crucial that we, as the youth, reconsider our approach and focus on constructive support rather than destructive criticism.
Dr. Bol Mel is not our age mate, and this fundamental fact should inform how we engage with his leadership. The majority of those criticising him on social media are young people who may lack the full context of his experience, the challenges he faces, and the complexities of high-level political decision-making. This is not to diminish the voice of youth in politics—quite the contrary. Young people have an essential role to play in shaping our nation’s future. However, there is a difference between constructive criticism rooted in understanding and destructive attacks based on incomplete information or unrealistic expectations.
When we criticize our leaders without offering viable alternatives or without fully understanding the constraints they operate under, we contribute to a culture of negativity that ultimately undermines the very progress we claim to seek. Dr. Bol, like any leader, operates within a complex web of political, economic, and social realities that may not always be visible to the general public—particularly to those who have not yet had the opportunity to engage deeply in the intricacies of governance.
Social media platforms have created echo chambers where criticism can quickly spiral into character assassination. What begins as a legitimate concern about policy decisions can rapidly devolve into personal attacks that serve no constructive purpose. Many of the criticisms levelled against Dr. Bol on social media may be intended to tarnish his image rather than address genuine policy concerns. This type of discourse is not only unproductive but actively harmful to our democratic processes.
We must ask ourselves: What do we achieve when we engage in this type of criticism? Does it lead to better policies? Does it strengthen our institutions? Does it contribute to the kind of political culture we want to see in our country? The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. Instead, such criticism often serves to weaken leadership, create instability, and distract from the real work of governance.
Rather than focusing solely on perceived shortcomings, we should take time to acknowledge and build upon Dr. Bol’s achievements. Since his appointment, he has worked within the constraints of his position to advance important initiatives and represent our interests on various platforms. It is important to recognize that his significant position is as 1st Deputy Chairman for SPLM, not just as Vice President. This distinction matters because it reflects the complexity of his role and the multiple responsibilities he carries.
The question “How many Vice Presidents do we have?” highlights an important point about the structure of our government and the specific role that Dr. Bol plays within it. Understanding these institutional arrangements is crucial for anyone seeking to engage meaningfully with political leadership. When we criticize without understanding the institutional context, we risk making unfair judgments and setting unrealistic expectations.
Dr. Bol Mel’s position as 1st Deputy Chairman for SPLM carries significant weight and responsibility. This role involves not just ceremonial duties but active participation in party leadership, policy development, and strategic planning. It requires balancing competing interests, managing complex relationships, and making difficult decisions that may not always be popular but are necessary for long-term stability and progress.
Effective leadership requires time, space, and support to implement meaningful change. When we subject our leaders to constant criticism and second-guessing, we create an environment where they must spend more time defending their actions than governing. This is counterproductive for everyone involved.
Dr. Bol Mel, like any leader, needs the opportunity to work without the constant distraction of social media attacks. This doesn’t mean he should be immune from accountability—quite the opposite. It means that our engagement with his leadership should be thoughtful, constructive, and based on a genuine desire to see positive outcomes rather than simply tearing down.
Giving Dr. Bol Mel a chance to work means creating space for him to implement his vision, learn from mistakes, and adapt his approach based on results rather than public opinion polls or social media sentiment. It means judging his performance based on concrete outcomes rather than perception or political theatre.
Dr. Bol Mel represents leadership not just for today but for tomorrow as well. This long-term perspective is crucial because the challenges we face as a nation require sustained effort and consistent leadership over time. Quick fixes and populist solutions may provide temporary satisfaction, but they rarely address the root causes of our problems.
When we recognize Dr. Bol Mel as our leader for both today and tomorrow, we acknowledge that effective leadership is about building foundations for future success, not just addressing immediate concerns. This requires patience, understanding, and support from the citizenry, particularly from young people who will inherit the consequences of today’s decisions.
Youth have a particular responsibility in this regard because we are the ones who will live with the long-term consequences of current leadership decisions. Rather than undermining that leadership through destructive criticism, we should be working to ensure that it succeeds in creating the kind of future we want to see.
There is a fundamental difference between constructive engagement and destructive criticism. Constructive engagement involves offering specific suggestions for improvement, volunteering to be part of solutions, and working within existing systems to create positive change. Destructive criticism, on the other hand, focuses on tearing down without building up, on highlighting problems without offering solutions, and on undermining confidence without providing alternatives.
As young people, we have the energy, creativity, and passion to be powerful forces for positive change. However, this potential is wasted when we channel it into destructive criticism rather than constructive engagement. Instead of spending our time on social media attacking Dr. Bol Mel’s character or questioning his every decision, we should be asking how we can support his efforts to create positive change.
This might involve volunteering for community initiatives, participating in policy discussions, joining political organizations, or simply taking the time to understand the complexities of governance before offering criticism. It might mean reaching out to Dr. Bol Mel’s office with specific suggestions or offers of assistance rather than broadcasting complaints on social media.
Dr. Bol Mel’s leadership represents an opportunity for us to demonstrate our commitment to constructive political engagement. By supporting his efforts while holding him accountable through appropriate channels, we can help create the kind of political culture that will serve our nation well both today and in the future.
The question posed at the beginning—”What will you achieve after you criticize Dr. Bol Mel Kuol?”—deserves a serious answer. The truth is that destructive criticism achieves very little beyond creating division, undermining confidence, and distracting from the real work of governance. Instead of continuing down this path, we as young people must choose to be part of the solution.
Dr. Bol Mel is our leader for both today and tomorrow, and he deserves our support as he works to address the complex challenges facing our nation. This doesn’t mean unquestioning loyalty or uncritical acceptance of all his decisions. It means engaging with his leadership in a mature, constructive way that recognizes both the constraints he operates under and the potential for positive change that his position represents.
By giving Dr. Bol Mel the chance to work, by focusing on his achievements rather than his perceived shortcomings, and by channelling our energy into constructive engagement rather than destructive criticism, we can help create the kind of political environment that will benefit all of us. The choice is ours, and the time to make it is now.
Let us be the generation that chooses construction over destruction, support over criticism, and hope over cynicism. Let us be the generation that recognizes that effective leadership requires not just capable leaders but also supportive citizens who are willing to work together toward common goals. Dr. Bol Mel can be an effective leader, but only if we give him the space, support, and constructive engagement he needs to succeed.
The writer, Wek Atak Kacjang, is a freelance journalist and can be reached via email at wekatak1@gmail.com