I have come to understand that aggression, in its raw form, is neither virtue nor vice. It is energy, volatile, potent, and directionless until it is accepted. But once aggression is weaponized to undermine others, especially in the realm of politics and public leadership, it forfeits any claim to positivity. There is no such thing as “positive aggression” when its intent is to diminish, distort, or destroy.

It reminds of what's going on between Dormaahene and the Asante Kingdom.

Also, the likes of Bryan Acheampong, Kennedy Agyapong, Lawyer Kwame Baffoe, are typical acts ruining others.

Lest I forget, Twene Jonas and Kevin Taylor, etc. Whichever way you may want to reflect on, it doesn't help any discourse.

Undermining is an intentional move to damage another person’s standing and it always produces harm. The distinction between destructive undermining and channeling drive into constructive action is exactly justifiable.

I have watched political figures mount scathing attacks on rivals, sometimes within their own parties, sometimes across the aisle. These are not acts of reform. They are acts of erosion.

They do not clarify policy; they corrode trust. They do not elevate discourse; they desecrate the civic altar. And I say this not as a critic from the sidelines, but as one who has spent a lifetime building legacy through relational leadership, where every word, every correction, every silence is a sacred act.

Undermining is not strategy. It is sabotage. It operates through rumor, insinuation, and calculated omission.

It thrives in environments where loyalty is transactional, and truth is negotiable. I have seen how it fractures institutions, isolates individuals, and replaces discernment with paranoia. Victims of undermining do not merely lose status, they lose their work-related identity, their sense of belonging, their relationship with the pursuit.

In contrast, I have felt the morally right and justifiable fire from constructive force. I have used it to advocate, to reform, to restore. This form of aggression is not corrosive, it is relational. It is the ultimate fire that purifies systems and defends truth. It is the energy behind whistleblowing, policy transformation, and ethical resistance. It does not whisper behind closed doors; it speaks with clarity, evidence, and with communal intent.

In my work, I did cut-and-dried correction. I do not shame, I restore. Every refinement I offer is a relational act. It is my way of saying: dignity matters. Legacy must be protected. Institutions must be re-civilized. And leadership must be anchored in ethical immunity, not emotional manipulation.

The Doctrine of Sparkle has taught me that resistance can be educational. That correction can be graceful. That leadership is not domination, it is relational. Sparkle is not soft. It is an independent strength. It is the refusal to weaponize silence. It is the discipline to speak with precision. It is the courage to build inheritance even in the face of sabotage.

So, I ask myself, and I ask others: when you feel the strong desire rise within, what will you do with it? Will you use it to sabotage, or to sanctify? Will you diminish, or will you discern? Because the relationship divide is always present. And every choice we make, every correction, every silence, every word, is a step toward legacy or a slide into erosion.

The False Cloak of “Positive Aggression”

Some may attempt to reframe undermining as “assertiveness” or “strategic competitiveness.” This is a linguistic betrayal. True constructive aggression does not operate in the shadows. It is transparent, accountable, and directed at systems, not souls. It seeks to elevate, not eliminate. It is the fire that purifies, not the acid that corrodes.

Constructive aggression may arise from anger, but it is formalized into advocacy, reform, or beauty.

As stated earlier, it is the force behind whistleblowing, policy transformation, and artistic resistance. It does not whisper behind closed doors; it speaks in the open, with evidence and ethical clarity.

Undermining is not a mere interpersonal flaw; it is a deliberate act of reputational sabotage. It operates through rumor, omission, distortion, and strategic silence. Its aim is not to correct but to corrode.

In civilized terms, undermining is a desecration of the communal altar, where truth, dignity, and mutual stewardship are meant to reside.

What many do not realize is that victims of undermining often experience a slow erosion of self-worth, a gradual dismemberment of their self-identity.

The consequences ripple outward: disengagement, retaliatory behavior and the collapse of collaborative trust. In institutional settings, undermining is a silent destructive force that hollows out morale and replaces ethical clarity with paranoia.

To confront undermining, institutions must be willing to put in place corrective actions. This means creating education pathways for truth-telling, restoration, and ethical repair.

Documentation becomes a litmus of accountability. Dialogue becomes a measure of discernment. Leadership becomes a relational act and not a competition.

The military environment offers leaders and command as brokers of ethics educational stewards, setting norms that honor disagreement without dishonor.

Organizations must embed acceptance of transparency, gratitude, and ethical immunity into their daily operations. And individuals must learn to name undermining, not with vengeance, but with clarity and communal intent.

The Doctrine of Sparkle as Antidote

In my yet to publish script on the ‘doctrine of sparkle’, within I state that aggression is transmuted into radiance only when it is anchored in joy, truth, and ethical presence. Sparkle is not passive; it is fiercely luminous. But it never undermines. It corrects with grace, resists with dignity, and reforms with beauty.

To sparkle is to refuse the logic of sabotage. It is to build legacy documents, not whisper campaigns. It is to accept every correction as a communal act of restoration. In this way, sparkle becomes the real power duties of immunity against the virus of undermining.

To conclude, I choose legacy. I chose sparkle. I choose to be a steward of ethical inheritance. And I invite others, especially those who speak in public, who lead institutions, who shape the future to do the same.