In an age when social‑media platforms amplify both ideas and egos, it’s common to see public figures turn into icons—almost objects of devotion. This happens not only in politics but also in entrepreneurship, organizational leadership, and even personal branding. But when do we cross the line from following someone for their ideas to idolizing them for their aura?

I recently read a social‑media post claiming that the “messianization” of a political leader such as President Petro is not the fault of his followers but of his opponents. According to this reasoning, criticism only reinforces him as a messianic figure; in other words, the phenomenon would not exist without the “obsession” of those who denounce it.

Although this argument sounds sophisticated, it is profoundly misleading. In practice, it removes responsibility from those who promote the personality cult and shifts attention to the critics, accusing them of having an emotional fixation on the leader. In branding terms, it’s like saying that if a brand becomes an emotional fraud, it’s the consumer’s fault for noticing.

What Can Be Inferred About the Author of That Message?

1. Sophisticated yet rhetorically loaded language—The author uses terms such as “messianization,” “favorite reference point,” and “poorly incarnated god,” suggesting a desire to appear as a deep thinker. Yet that linguistic density often masks an argument that is ideologically charged and defensive.
2. Sympathy or affinity with the leader being criticized (Gustavo Petro)—Although the author doesn’t explicitly defend him, the message’s subtext clearly protects the president. It redirects criticism toward opponents, accusing them of being part of the very phenomenon they claim to reject—an indirect way of downplaying the personality‑cult problem.
3. Attempt to invert the criticism—The author doesn’t deny the “messianization” phenomenon but blames opponents for perpetuating it. It’s an interesting rhetorical pivot, but a convenient one: responsibility shifts from uncritical defenders of the leader to his critics. Instead of helping dismantle the phenomenon, the author uses it to attack those who expose it.
4. Moralizing the debate—The post suggests that opponents have “nothing honest to offer society” and lack their own identity. This is not analysis but a moral judgment, revealing more about the author’s bias than about the reality being described.

Why Does That Message Merit an Analytical Comment?

• It confuses cause and effect—Criticism of messianism doesn’t create it. Unchecked political idolatry—encouraged by the leader and his followers—triggers denunciations of the phenomenon. Blaming the critic for what they expose is a circular fallacy.
• It diverts attention from the real problem—A personality cult is harmful to democracy, no matter its origin. Minimizing it or distracting from its analysis by attacking critics only helps normalize it.
• It falls into the same essentialism it condemns—The post accuses the right and center of lacking independent thought but offers no alternative arguments and fails to recognize that honest criticism can exist without idolatry.

In personal branding—just as in political or corporate leadership—the parallel is clear: when your reputation relies more on myth than on message, you’re no longer leading; you’re performing. And when those around you stifle dissent, attack criticism, or label every objection as “hate,” your personal brand has lost its authenticity.

For students, entrepreneurs, business owners, merchants, and professionals, this political case offers a fundamental lesson: real leadership doesn’t need to be idolized; it needs to be understood. If your clients, colleagues, or followers cannot question you without fear of being disqualified, you’re not building influence—you’re erecting an altar.

And blaming critics for the existence of a cult is as absurd as blaming the thermometer for the fever.

In Other Words

If you want your personal brand to grow with integrity, don’t look for devotees. Look for interlocutors. Don’t build on myth; build on purpose, consistency, and truth. True respect is born not from fanaticism but from critical thinking.