Politics has something to do with polis, the city-state. To Athenians, politics was the art of living together in a city in such a way that the best in every citizen got expressed –this is important- for the collective good. Today, this reads like an idea that comes from far beyond Alice’s wonderland. Precisely because the idea sounds so strange in our politically hardened ears, we need to try and get used to it a little more.
Socrates was once asked why it was that, while there were expert trainers for horses, there was none to train the youth of Athens in morals. His reply was as strange, by our norms, as the Athenian idea of politics was. The community as a whole, said Socrates, should be the school for morals. It is to this that the aphorism ‘values are caught, not taught’ owes its origin. We parrot it, though we live in a scheme of things at total variance from that of Socrates’ Athens. Every Athenian expected law-makers to be role-models for the youth. From them, the Athenian youth could ‘catch’ ethical values. Socrates’ heroic decision to embrace death as per the will of the state, even though it was manifestly unjust, resulted from the duty he held as supreme for citizens to be law-abiding.

The word ‘candidate’ has an interesting origin. It refers to the custom of Roman politicians cladding themselves in white–which survives unwittingly in Congress-wallahs even today-while canvassing for votes. Their white togas were meant to symbolize purity. The prime eligibility of a politician to be a ‘candidate’ was that he was ‘candid’ or clean.

Now, cut to our times. As per the statistics presented in the Parliament a decade ago, about 35% of our law-makers have criminal records. Crime is now an essential ingredient in the making of a leader. We may sound indignant at the criminals-politicians nexus; but we are sure to vote against an honest candidate who fights as an independent. Phoolan Devi, the Chambal Valley dacoit, became a Member of Parliament. Law-breaker became a law-maker. But, as the logic of a heartless metropolis would had it, she was gunned down in the national capital. Her assassin? Well, it was someone who calculated that his plume as the murderer of a member of parliament would open to him the door of instant political success.

Shri M. M Jacob was, once upon a time, a minister of state in the Union Government. Thanks to the twists and turns of politics, he lost his chair. I decided to visit him the next day. The best time to call on a minister, if you really want to have an unhurried time with him, is soon after he is dislodged from power. His residence wore a funeral look, deserted by favours-seeking hordes. He was happy to meet me, and was in no hurry to get rid of me. We kept talking. I asked him why it was that politicians depended heavily on dubious characters and, often, frauds and criminals.

“Well,” he said without having to cudgel his brains for an answer, “at the time of the elections, good people stand aloof. Criminals and goondas are ready and eager to help. So, an obligation is created. It has to be honoured, because you have to face elections again.”

So we say, ‘politics is the art of the possible.’ In such an art, only outcomes matter. The idea of matching means and ends seems impractically idealistic. Politics as the art of the possible is synonymous with ‘politics without principles,’ which Gandhiji included in his list of Seven Deadly Sins. All that matters is that elections are won; never mind, if the means are foul rather than fair. Nothing should hinder the pursuit of power and profit. What have principles to do with winning elections? Or, boarding the bandwagon of politics?

Hence the two interesting features of Indian politics. Every political party accuses the other, with extreme derision, of ‘playing politics,’ as though nothing worse can be imagined. This leaves me wondering. What exactly is the offence at play here? Is it politics; or is it how it is played? If the manner of playing is the offence, are there rules that govern the play? What are they? If there are no rules, how can there befouls? Or, does the offence lie in politics per se? If there is something wrong about it, why don’t we rectify it? At least, diagnose the malady?

That is, most could feel, really asking for too much! So, we have evolved a via media. We want principles in politics, but we don’t want principles to inconvenience us politically. So, here’s the division of labour in vogue. You keep the principles; I’ll take the politics. This reigning paradigm of doing politics is showcased nationally each day as Prime Time News Hour Debate, the essence of which is: I damn you for doing precisely what I did while I was in power. And you return the compliment by sneering at me, “Look, who’s talking!”

The seminal reason for the degeneration of politics into a theatre of exigencies is the rejection of the discipline of truth. For politics to remain as the art of living together wholesomely, maximizing the welfare of citizens, it has to be founded inflexibly on truth. Truth is the fountain-spring of justice, the over-arching value in the Preamble of our Constitution. Where there is no commitment to truth, there is no value for justice. Not only that. A uniform commitment to justice will be unacceptable to the ruling elite. Truth, as Gandhiji emphasised, is the essence of non-violence. Untruth breeds and sustains violence. Violence is incompatible with justice and human welfare. It is because of the rejection of truth as a foundation for our shared life that we have corrupted politics into a minefield of our own welfare.
When Keralites learn to view the corruptions and perversions perpetrated by ‘my party’ as reprehensible and unacceptable as those by ‘your party,’ we will, together, effect a paradigm-shift in doing politics and qualify ourselves for good governance. In cultivating this much-needed, long-overdue objectivity, the Christian community needs to show the way. But how are we to do so, if our religiosity itself becomes a school for partisanship?

Valson Thampu