Is the Election Becoming a Cause of Killing or Technological Development?

Elections were once moments when people paused, listened, and thought about the road ahead. Today, that pause has disappeared. As the April election draws near, public life feels overwhelmed by noise. Campaign songs blare from every direction, especially the now-common “song pottiye kettiye” culture, where music is used less to inspire and more to provoke. One song mocks, another responds, and soon the election becomes a contest of volume rather than values. In this atmosphere, frustration builds easily, tempers rise quickly, and small disagreements can turn into serious conflict. When politics feeds anger instead of understanding, elections begin to threaten life rather than protect it. Technology stands at the center of this change. It was supposed to make democracy stronger—faster communication, better access to information, cleaner governance. Instead, it often acts as an amplifier of hostility. Social media rewards what is loud, aggressive, and emotionally charged. A sarcastic lyric or insulting video travels faster than any discussion about jobs, education, or innovation. As April approaches, many voters are being influenced more by viral content than by thoughtful ideas. Technology, instead of guiding society toward development, is increasingly used to deepen division. The effect on everyday life is impossible to ignore. Families argue over forwarded videos. Neighbors stop talking. Young people learn that humiliation gains more attention than honesty. For workers trying to earn a living and students trying to study, election season becomes mentally exhausting. This kind of damage may not appear in headlines, but it slowly breaks the social fabric. When peace and trust are lost, development loses its meaning. No amount of technological progress can replace human dignity. Elections themselves are not the enemy. The danger lies in how they are conducted and how technology is used. When leaders choose noise over responsibility and citizens accept provocation instead of reflection, democracy weakens. An election can either open the door to progress or push society closer to violence. The choice is made every day—in what we share, what we believe, and how we treat one another. When the songs finally fade after April, people will still have to live together. That is the real test of an election. If it leaves behind anger and broken relationships, it has failed, no matter who wins. But if it encourages thoughtful participation and responsible use of technology, it can still become a force for development rather than destruction.